RSS
Have you ever noticed how physically unattractive Woke people tend to be? Both the males and females are relatively ugly and the males are relatively short and physically weak. Both are clearly high in mental illness. It’s almost like there’s something genetically wrong with them.
Well, your eyes don’t deceive you. Some fascinating new evidence has come to light that left wing people are, to it bluntly, more likely to be mutants (something which is almost always a bad thing in evolutionary terms) than right-wing people. It has been presented by a young researcher, a computer scientist called Joseph Bronski. He has presented compelling new evidence for a point I have been exploring for many years.
Under the harsh Darwinian conditions that were prevalent until the Industrial Revolution, there was a strong selection pressure to be genetically physically and mentally healthy. There was also strong selection pressure to be group-oriented: pro-social, mentally stable and high in impulse control. Groups that were too low in these internally cooperative traits would be destroyed by those that were higher in them. Individuals that were too low in them would be killed by the group. Consequently all of these traits became bundled together. Supporting this, Zakharin and Bates found that 66 percent of the variation in being generally group-oriented results from genetic differences [Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models support strong heritability for the five moral foundations, By M. Zakharin and T. Bates, European Journal of Personality, 2023].
Moreover, studies have shown that left-wing people value individually-oriented moral foundations such as harm avoidance and equality are relevant to them personally in making moral judgments—judgements that are essentially self-interested and would help less talented individuals ascend the hierarchy of the group [Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations, By J. Graham, J. Haidt and B. Nosek, Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 2009]. The above-cited Zakharin and Bates (2023) found that 49 percent of the variation in individualizing morality was due to genetic variation.
So, taken together, we should not be surprised that people who are less group-oriented and more individualizing are higher in “mutational load” than right-wing people. They are more likely to be the descendants of those who would have died as children under a harsher evolutionary regime, in which child mortality was as much as 50%, as opposed to less than 1% in Western countries today [Is Child Death the Crucible of Human Evolution? By T. Volk and J. Atkinson, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2008].
In my recent book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, I bring together the growing body of evidence that leftism is associated with elevated genetic sickness. Compared to conservatives, liberals have less attractive and less symmetrical faces, liberal males are physically shorter and liberal males are less muscular. These traits imply a poor immune system, due to high mutational load, which has prevented them from maintaining a symmetrical phenotype, reaching their maximum height or accruing muscle because, with a poor immune system, they must invest disproportionately more of their bio-energetic resources in fighting off disease.
As I also note in the book, leftists are also higher in mental illnesses (such as depression) which are strongly genetic, and they are more likely to be atheists—atheism strongly crosses over with leftism; moreover, they are more likely to be left-handed, which implies a significantly asymmetrical brain. The heritability of political viewpoint, as I have discussed in my book The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, can be relatively high, so this strongly implies that leftism is partly a function of mutational load.
However, it is true that an element of these relationships could be environmental. Perhaps having these kinds of traits makes people feel excluded or inferior. This makes them bitter about the world, which makes them want to tear down all of its power structures and traditions, causing them to be attracted to leftism in a kind of a symbiotic relationship. What is needed is hard proof that the relationship is genetically mediated. This is exactly what Joseph Bronski appears to have demonstrated.
In a study in the journal Open Psych entitled “Evidence for a Paternal Age Effect on Leftism,” Bronski achieves something that is both important and beautifully simple. He shows that older fathers are not more likely than younger fathers to be left-wing but that the fathers of left-wing children tend to be older. The correlation between paternal age and leftism was relatively weak but it was highly significant statistically, that is, vanishingly unlikely to be a fluke. This finding is vital because as men age they produce more and more de novo mutations in their sperm, meaning that the older your father is the less genetically healthy you are likely to be, on average. The fact that older fathers are not more likely to be left-wing yet they are more likely to produce offspring who are left-wing effectively demonstrates that being left-wing is a function of mutation; a function of poor genetic fitness.
In another study, as yet unpublished and available on Bronski’s website, he argues something that even I—who tends to be sympathetic to genetic explanations—found surprising: The rise in leftism in the West over the last century can be almost entirely explained by rising mutational load; the rise, in other words, of mutants. In The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, I argue that rising mutational load is part of the explanation. It led to more and more selfish, individually-oriented people until a tipping point was reached, probably around 1963, causing society to rapidly become left-wing. I aver that a big part of this was environmental. Once the shift began to occur, the more intelligent—i.e., those better at sensing the general mood and better able to conform to it and see the benefits of so-doing—began competitively signalling leftism, causing a kind of runway individualism.
However, in his paper “On Evolutionary Pressure and General Leftism,” Bronski argues that the rise in leftism can be mainly, not just partly, explained by genetic changes in the population. In effect, he notes that there are two competing pressures: conservatives tending to have more children and a rise a mutation, which can be quantified. As Bronski summarises:
Using a narrow-sense heritability estimate of 0.6, we find a selection pressure of 0.076 SDs per generation in the conservative direction. We . . . compute the mutational pressure as 0.22 SDs in the leftist direction. We find that the sum of these two pressures adequately explains the change in general leftism per generation over that last 70 years (0.15 SD per generation in the leftist direction), indicating that Western political change is solely due to evolutionary pressure. Per Bayesian analysis, there is a 95% chance, given this data, that 70% or more of the observed shift in leftism is due solely to evolutionary pressure, namely mutational pressure.
If this seems extreme, Bronski attempts to allay such a reaction in his Open Psych study, discussed earlier:
It is theoretically plausible that mutational pressure could produce some or all of the leftward shift of the last several generations in the US and other Western nations . . . If the mutational pressure on leftism were 1 in 20, and leftism were treated as binary, then mutational pressure would convert 5% of would-be non-leftists each generation.
If Bronski is right, and his data appears to be sound, the implication is clear: growing leftism is overwhelmingly a function the growth of genetically unfit mutants. You will not fight its growth by critiquing illogical Woke arguments.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
This is more proof we’re not fixing America at the ballot box or thru informed logical discussions and agreements.
There is no compromise with someone who hates your existence. The leftist/mutant embraces that persona – the enemy of the Leftist is not even worthy of basic human respect and thus all counter arguments, facts, points, ideas are equally worthless. Why do you think the basic counter argument of all Leftists is either name calling or shouting down? They cannot discuss their ideas, or the ideas of others in a normal setting.
I recall E. O. W. Kirkegaard saying that Jews, one of the reasons, they are overrepresented amongst geniuses is that they’ve lots of ‘mental illnesses’.
Indeed, being a psychopath is bad. But seems sine qua non to be a CEO or what-not, and that’s good.
Being depressed (or worse: suicidal) ain’t good, eh? But it’s amazing how many artists are like that!
Well, Prof Dutton himself knows a lot about autism. One of necessary traits to be a genius is autism!
Remember: a genius is basically an extremely high-IQ criminal, he disdains Group Cohesiveness whose one of its major virtues is law-abidingness.
Although many racialists seem to want, Whites shouldn’t and cannot become “Honorary Yellows” i.e. a Japanese theatre will always be quieter than a White one, and Japanese streets will always be cleaner.
Whites should find their ‘Goldilocks Equilibrium’ with mental illnesses – and use these people who think ‘differently’ to better Science, Philosophy and the Arts. As it has been done in the past.
Most of the woketards cannot give a coherent rational answer as to why they think the way they think or feel the way they feel. They use shaming as a tool (you racist homopohe white straight male). All I can say in response (even to the wimpy white guys) –Biatch, go stick your head where the sun doesn’t shine. I don’t have to explain my existence to you.
Physiognomy is often right on the money.
Or, as I put it: “Phys…. Is”.
Video Link
You did a wonderful job of explaining the cause and effect, now how do we get rid of them?
There’s a fair number of societies/civilization that don’t have this problem (cough cough Russia/Muslims)
Perhaps we can take a look at what they’re doing and begin implimentation.
Interesting article. I’m sure that your deductions have merit with regards to the overall creep of leftism.
I believe the main contributing factor to the surge of leftism since the 1960’s is a subconscious realization that in an overcrowded and evermore competitive world, left-wing dependence on Big Brother government was selected for by these individuals as a hedge against those challenges.
Maybe it is simply a numbers game, the larger a population gets, the more it depends on government benefits and thus leftist socialism.
“older fathers are not more likely than younger fathers to be left-wing but that the fathers of left-wing children tend to be older.”
Meh, there’s thousands of potential confounders. E.g., do older fathers on average have more wealth? Do children raised in wealth tend to become more or less liberal? Are older/wealthier fathers, despite not being liberal themselves, more likely to send their children off to expensive schools where they’re indoctrinated into leftism?
“If Bronski is right, and his data appears to be sound, the implication is clear: growing leftism is overwhelmingly a function the growth of genetically unfit mutants.”
Is Joseph Bronski Jewish? I would expect a Jew to favor genetic explanations because it would exculpate his tribe’s own role in the rise of leftism – particularly in a post-WWII world where Jews captured the commanding heights of Western media and academia and used them to distribute atomizing anti-nationalist and anti-Christian propaganda designed to dissolve the ethnic cohesion of their white Christian hosts – all as prophylaxis against the dreaded “authoritarian personality” and “another Holocaust” – their great fear that the white goyim would, yet again, wake up to Jewish tyranny and unite to overthrow them.
There’s a cadre of Jews, of which Bronski appears to be one[1] (other examples being Scott Alexander, Steve Sailer and Steven Pinker), who’ve, in recent times, embraced HBD because they believe it shows that Jews are a “high IQ” master race. In short, they’re Jewish-supremacists who find HBD explanations useful to rationalize their massive overrepresentation in the ruling elite. In the period immediately preceding and following WWII Jews were overwhelmingly hostile to “pseudoscientific race science” with figures such as Boas, Lewontin and Gould all being champions of environmentalist explanations for white civilization’s success – still guys like Jared Diamond push this narrative. This is because, at that point in time, genetic explanations for white peoples’ success were inimical to Jews’ endeavor of weakening and dissolving white Christendom. More recently, however, many Jews have embraced race science because they believe it useful in lending legitimacy – a meritocratic patina – to their own newfound tyrannical powers and misrule.
Jews tore down WASP rule with accusations that it was the product of exclusivist and supremacist cultural attitudes, “white supremacy,” nepotistic “old boys clubs” and “systemic racism.” The Jews did this while themselves simultaneously practicing nepotism, systemic racism and in-group favoritism to a degree that would have made the most “racist” and “anti-Semitic” of blue-blooded WASPs blush. Nevertheless, the Jews want to claim that their success has been the product of meritocracy – “we can’t help that we’re genetically smarta than you goy!” In truth, the accusation of “white supremacy” and “systemic racism” were always Jewish projections.
Back to Dutton: His basic hypothesis is that higher mutational load resulting, supposedly, from lower child mortality, and/or greater paternal age (and what of maternal age? That would seem to be a more important factor) is the driving force behind the rise in the rates of “spiteful mutants” like transgenders, feminists and homosexuals. Well, transgenderism among youths has gone from less than 0.5% in the 90s to over 5% today. That’s an over 1,000% rise in the space of thirty years. (This rise has been widely described as “explosive.”) Has there been a 1,000% increase in mutations in the last thirty years? A 1,000% improvement in child mortality in the last thirty years? A 1,000% increase in older fathers?
Even if mutational load plays a role, it would seem that the far larger role is played by something else. Something environmental and social – not biological.
Notably, during the Weimar Republic there was a similar explosive growth in these same symptoms: transgenderism, leftism, homosexuality and widespread sexual perversions. Was this also due to a reduction in child mortality and an epidemic of older fathers?
Here’s a better explanation for the proliferation of “spiteful mutants”: not the increase in the mutation rate but a decrease in the function of the social immune system which is responsible for suppressing/clearing such antisocial “mutant” behaviors.
How and why has the West’s social immune system been suppressed? It’s been suppressed by Jews – a Jewish mafia which has cartelized the media and nepotistically hijacked the elite educational institutions (presently 6/8 Ivy presidents are Jewish) and have used these institutions to pathologize the normal healthy instincts of their host societies as being “xenophobic, racist and bigoted” manifestations of an “authoritarian personality.” (While Jews hypocritically lobby, bribe and blackmail for Western support for their supremacist, exclusivist ethnostate in the Middle East.) The Jews have, like the AIDS virus, crippled their host’s immune system. This has opened the door to the invasion of countless opportunistic parasites (e.g., blacks/Muslims) – pathogens which would otherwise be trivially fought off – and the proliferation of endogenous “spiteful mutants” (cancers) like feminists, gays and transgenders. Why did the Jews destroy the immune system of their host – its ability to combat parasites? Because the Jews are, themselves, a parasite which fears expulsion.
Notably, if someone dies of AIDS-induced bacterial pneumonia we don’t say they died of “pneumonia.” We say they died of AIDS. After all, if the pneumonia didn’t kill him then some other infection or cancer would have soon after. Similarly, it’s the Jews who are culpable for the West’s destruction: not their PoC and blue-haired pets. Similarly, no amount of chemo or antibiotics will save an AIDS patient. Only addressing the root cause of his immune suppression will – the HIV virus or, in the case of the Christian West: the Jews.
But there’s good news. When the HIV virus is suppressed by modern drugs and the host’s immune function is restored, the patient typically makes a remarkable and even miraculous recovery. Similarly, when the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 the Spanish immediately entered a Golden Age, and when the Germans expelled the Jews from public life at the end of the Weimar period they saw an immediate and profound revival of their cultural and economic life. So, the lesson is, if you want to save the West from the death throes of civilizational AIDS in which it finds itself then you must expel the parasite which is responsible for the illness. But – and this is important – make certain that the Jews don’t then gather all the world’s nations against you in revenge for having been expelled, in which case your revival is likely to be short-lived, as was the case with Germany in 1945.
[1] https://www.josephbronski.com/p/jewish-iq-ethnocentrism-dissident
Let’s not forget what old Mr. Lenin said: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. In their passion and innocence, young people instinctively know something is desperately wrong with living this way, but their energy is easily channeled into a strident but useless activism that does absolutely nothing to challenge what’s been done to us, only makes it worse.
I’ll quote from a thoughtful online essay entitled “Woke Imperialism”, “The militarists, corporatists, oligarchs, politicians, academics and media conglomerates champion identity politics and diversity because it does nothing to address the systemic injustices or the scourge of permanent war that plague the U.S. It is an advertising gimmick, a brand, used to mask mounting social inequality and imperial folly. It busies liberals and the educated with a boutique activism, which is not only ineffectual but exacerbates the divide between the privileged and a working class in deep economic distress. The haves scold the have-nots for their bad manners, racism, linguistic insensitivity and garishness, while ignoring the root causes of their economic distress. The oligarchs could not be happier.”
One more quote, from Signore Machiavelli in 1513, suffices, ““One of the great secrets of the day is to know how to take possession of popular prejudices and passions, in such a way as to introduce a confusion of principles which makes impossible all understanding between those who speak the same language and have the same interests.”
Mr. Dutton would you happen to know the current state of genetic research into psychopathy?
Never blame the victim for what society has done to them.
If the woke have a real physical issue then that is an indictment against the society that created them…it means our food and environment has been so poisoned that it is physically effecting humanities future.
Males are particularly at risk due to the fragility of the sex gene, where have all the baritones gone?
If you have a young boy in the family then get him away from the women and feed him meat…if you are a male with man boobs then get off the processed sh#t and add flax seed to the diet as an estrogen blocker.
Start at what you can change to walk back from the edge…you are what you eat!
I love analyses like this one. That doesn’t mean they are correct (something with correlation vs causation), useful (what’s the plan now? genetic screening?) or even plausible (really, mutational load? not things like mind control, group pressure, hopelessness of life?).
All this is is … interesting. And from this sort of analyses you can build whole networks of theories with all sorts of conclusions and ideas. And then it stops. There’s nothing you can do, the kids are just mutants, things can only get worse.
On the other side is the theory that some entities are actively producing hordes of woketards, zooming in on basic human psychological traits. Taking advantage of weaknesses like Darren Brown can pay with white pieces of paper in jewelry shops. This actually fits loads and loads of scientific facts, follow-the-moneys, religious information and many more pieces of evidence. Armed with such a theory it’s also clear how to attack the problem: destroy the manipulators, educate the victims, arm them with mental martial arts.
I love these analyses; they are entertaining. But harmful misdirections.
While I don’t differ too much the about trends in the left generally, this statement is stunningly unpersuasive.
The concept that immunity and in the west, is determining physical development to this extent is very unlikely. Good luck finding a doctor who would support it.
And what is a symmetrical phenotype? A certain amount of asymmetry is normal. Where does immunity impact symmetry ? A deluge of of fanciful claims.
More likely that unattractive and unhealthy traits are being collected and passed on by the left.
Although conservatives aren’t immune to negative unattractive hereditary traits either.
Understand not all ‘mutants’ end up on the left and by the left we mean the white non-Jewish left. The intentions of other groups are quite different and not maladaptive for them.
insulting mutants now, what did mutants do to be demonized by associating woke nutjobs with them.
Since the 1960s what you’re seeing is only the cherry on the Communist cake. If you’re looking for society tipping over into extreme leftism, examine times like 1776 or 325.
Or, uh, 400 BC.
“Although the [democratic] son may not even respect money, he will probably not respect anything else; he will become shiftless, kind of a reed in the wind, unable to control his desires, which will probably fluctuate wildly. Lacking any ability to discern differences in appetite, he will probably live solely for the moment, and he will be rudderless. His will be a life without order.”
“so is democracy greedy for absolute freedom; it recognizes no authority whatever, neither familial nor militaristic nor academic. ”
“The democrat is desirous of all things and treats all, good and bad, equally; if his son, the tyrannical man, falls into bad company — and he will — then he will be governed entirely by the bad and the desire for the bad. He will be driven by lust [for deviant control], and his lust will drive him completely out of control. He will eventually become something like a wild beast, his lust will become bestial, and he will do terrible things to get what he wants. No longer able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, he will turn against every man and will earn and deserve every man’s hatred and scorn. His life will be miserable.”
Sound familiar to anyone?