RSS
If you’re anything like me, then your natural reaction upon seeing an obviously Woke girl —- complete with the obligatory dyed blue hair, rainbow flag handbag and supercilious facial expression — will be to avoid her. After all, her bright hair alone is screaming at you to do just that. In nature, vivid colours signify that the organism is poisonous; a phenomenon known as “aposematism.” However, considering that leftists, on average, are physically weaker, shorter and less physically and mentally healthy than conservatives, she is really more like a hoverfly; mimicking a wasp in order to deter the aggressors whom she fears.
Nevertheless, your reaction may well be to intensely dislike her. She, after all, is a leading enforcer of the New Oppression; the unforgiving ersatz religion of Wokeness: Black Lives Matter riots, prosecuting elderly ladies for “misgendering,” Drag Queen Story Hour . . . she’ll be an enthusiastic promoter of all of these “causes.” What a simply dreadful young woman.
Or is she? Is she, perhaps, in reality, some kind of ethno-nationalist in disguise, albeit an extremely convincing disguise? Rather than avoid her, and dislike her, should you not, in fact, thank her and perhaps even offer to take her out for dinner; at a vegan restaurant, naturally? In my new book, Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, I prosecute the superficially extraordinary case that this is precisely what you should do.
Wokeness is, ultimately, a group level adaptation; a vital adaptation which ensures that the group is returned to genetic mental and physical health, and, associated with this, high religiosity and ethnocentrism. The group is, therefore, able to survive the battle of group selection and, indeed, survive the next catastrophe that nature throws at us. It does this by creating an environment in which all but the extremely genetically healthy are induced to not pass on their genes. In that sense, this blue-haired Cultural Anthropology undergraduate is a nationalist hero: she is sacrificing her own genetic interests for the good of ethnic group and, ultimately, for the survival of humanity itself.
How does Wokeness accomplish this? To really understand it, we have to go back to the Industrial Revolution. Until that point, we were under harsh Darwinian selection, with a child mortality rate of about 50%. This process, in selecting for genetic physical health, purged the population of mutations, which almost always negatively impact an organism, every generation, keeping it healthy.
As I demonstrate in the book, we were also selecting for intelligence (allowing you to better solve problems and thus survive), mental health (the ability to cope with adversity and not get cast out by the band), pro-social personality (because a harsh environment means you must be part of a group), ethnocentrism (a group that is low in this gets itself displaced), conservatism (in essence, concern with the group over the individual and his feelings) and religiosity (a bundle of adaptive instincts which also seems to take that which is adaptive and make it into the will of God).
All of these traits are significantly genetic and, as they were being selected for together, they became bundled together in a process known as “pleiotropy.” Thus, to varying degrees (and there are nuances and exceptions for specific reasons) they are all genetically related. Intelligent people are genetically mentally and physically healthier. This makes sense because the brain accounts for about 84% of the genome, meaning it is a massive target for mutation. Accordingly, if your body is high in mutational load, leading to a poor immune system, your brain will be even more so.
The medical and other advances of the Industrial Revolution led to the collapse of child mortality; from 50% down to about 1%. Obviously, the result has been an enormous build-up of mutations. And we would expect those who carry these mutations to deviate from that which was the pre-Industrial norm, which was to be extremely conservative. Predictably, therefore, leftism is associated with numerous markers of mutation and poor health: shortness, weakness, physical ugliness, mental illness and so on.
However, in advanced societies, intelligence is negatively associated with fertility. Intelligent people desire fewer children, seemingly, in part, because they are more environmentally sensitive; they are less instinctive. This allows them to rise above instinctive responses and coldly solve problems. But it also means that they are far more dependent on being in an environment that, in order to be an “evolutionary match” with nature’s reproductive imperative, must be exposed to images of lots of death, such as 50 percent child mortality. But, as explored in our book, studies have shown that an environment of low mortality salience (such as in contemporary America), even after priming people with death imagery, their instincts fail to be triggered, and they eschew having children. (When we are made to think of death, we desire more offspring.) Consequently, it is the less intelligent (more instinctive) who increasingly have children and low IQ is genetically associated with poor health.
If this went on for too long, humanity would become so unhealthy that when the next massive volcanic eruption brought down civilization, as it did in the Bronze Age, we would almost all die out, save groups who were isolated hunter-gatherers. In particular, ethnic groups living in cold and difficult environments, filled with the unhealthy and unintelligent, would be totally destroyed. The European peoples would go extinct.
But then Darwin, or perhaps God, created the group level evolutionary strategy of Wokeness . . .
What does Wokeness actually achieve? In taking over the culture, Wokeness deliberately puts environmentally sensitive people on a maladaptive road map of life by encouraging them, overtly and covertly, not to have children: Humans are evil and are destroying the environment, men and women should change sex and sterilise themselves, life should be about material pleasure rather than having children and so abort your offspring, life has no eternal meaning so trade children for material wealth. Only those, among European peoples, who are, for genetic reasons alone, very strongly conservative will be resistant to this and will, therefore, pass on their genes. If you control for intelligence, therefore, the big predictor of fertility is conservatism, with liberalism the big predictor of sterility.
Europeans with low intelligence will also disappear: Every television commercial tells them that the only acceptable kind of couple, if a European is involved at all, is interracial, so they simply drop out of the European group.
But Wokeness goes further: it deliberately engineers a growth in nationalist sentiment. Crime is effectively legalised, causing people to become more stressed and hence more instinctive, resulting in them becoming more religious and nationalistic. DEI causes utter incompetence; a dangerous life, which makes people more instinctive as well as more resentful, if they are white, which makes people more instinctive. Polarisation means conservatives are more likely to breed with other conservatives. Intelligent people are highly conformist, they better understand what the dominant worldview is and have the “effortful control” (conscientiousness) to conform to it, meaning they will be the most likely to become Woke and, so, resign from the gene pool. Accordingly, civilization collapses, which will make people even more instinctive. The collapse in civilization will re-impose harsh Darwinian conditions, making us healthy once again. As has been said: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
The species has to survive, and the ethnic group, a kind of sub-species, has to survive. Faced with mutational meltdown, we would expect evolution to throw up a mechanism which would return us to genetic health, ensuring our survival. That mechanism is Wokness. So, if you are an ethno-nationalist, you should not shun the next blue-haired, female student that you run into. You should say, “Thank you so much. Thank for all that you are doing to ensure that we survive. You truly are not a spiteful but an altruistic mutant.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Twisted logic and laborious reading. I hate this article.
“mental health (the ability to cope with adversity and not get cast out by the band)”
You should write a sciencey sounding article about how Syd Barrett leaving Pink Floyd increased the genetic fitness and lowered the mutational load of Pink Floyd.
Dear author, Don’t forget what makes us humans, not the flesh but the spirit, so what you wrote
:Wokeness is, ultimately, a group level adaptation; a vital adaptation which ensures that the group is returned to genetic mental and physical health: is reverse of the truth.The dyed blue hair girl and those like her will disappear like Sodom . Don’t you know that 1 Corinthians 1:26
“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:”
God is The One who gives life, and sustain it. Let’s us trust in Him.
Many of us recogniaze “woke” as controlled opposition. In the words of the minister Christopher Hedges, “when it [diversity] is devoid of a political agenda it recruits a tiny segment of those marginalized by society into unjust structures to help perpetuate them.” See his essay on what he rightly terms “Woke Imperialism” at https://consortiumnews.com/2023/02/06/chris-hedges-woke-imperialism/
This is from the introduction to that insightful analysis, “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.”
I once met this chick, years ago:
Much younger than I;
University undergrad;
Extremely hot, according to my perspective: sorta Heroin Chic (but no drugs/alcohol or anorexia/bulimia), she just looks ‘sickly’ due to being very deppressed;
Blue-haired (cool!);
Hairy armpits, so I could smell her pheromones directly: pleasant odour (!);
Bisexual;
Somewhat taller than the average White girl her age;
Immensely smart: her father is a Maths University Prof;
Jewish (“Mischling”) but baptised Christian. Never learnt if she’s halachically Jewish or not. (By her appearence, she was waaay more European than Hebrew).
In short, speaking of Jewesses, she looks like Eva Green¹ admixed to Charlotte Gainsbourg² – nice!
She never cited Sam Harris as an influence, but she mirrored him in her thought a lot:
Hated religion (although she told me to be against “proselytising Atheism”);
Thought the Iraq War was no blunder due to “America at least had a plan” and “spreading Democracy is good” (I really got annoyed by that!);
She considered herself a “Classical Liberal”: frankly, she was indeed open-minded to anyone!
Her ‘sexual ethics’ was surprisingly conservative: she was still a virgin!
I asked her if she wanted children, she said: ‘I want to have 4!’
Hardcore anime fan: that’s associated w/ autism – I asked her even if she was an autist, she answered she’d never been through a diagnosis and doubts it (but as for me I’m uncertain). Side-note: Anime/Manga there are basically NO ethnic minorities!
The 1st time we’ve “fought”; I re-befriended her by saying (paraphrasing):
‘I don’t care if you’re a Mao fan, a Chomsky fan or an Ayn Rand fan, a Himmler fan! I’ll always be your friend!’ She giggled.
The 2nd time though: We’ve decided to “cut ties forever” amicably as she considered herself a “person unworthy of my friendship”…
Never seen her again. I hope everything is amazing in her World. She deserves it!
Never told her I loved her – and wouldn’t “waste time” dating, would just marry her on a whim!
1.
2.
.
.
.
So, she is kinda a “mutant” in Darwinian terms, but not exactly either!
She is very hard to decipher, I feel.
Anyway… mostly off-topic but this made me remember those days:
Agh. Who is this Edward Dutton creep?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Edward_Dutton#Ephebophilia-apologism
“Men tend to be attracted to younger females for evolutionary reasons, and this may stray into the “barely legal” range.” – Edward Dutton
“In his book Spiteful Mutants, Dutton similarly writes the following:
…just as heterosexual males tend to sexually select for younger females, including, in extreme cases, those who are only just pubescent. In much the same way, we should distinguish between heterosexual pedophiles who are exclusively attracted to children and heterosexual males with an extreme penchant for female youth. (p. 196)”
I think you are a very weird person if you are attracted to women like that, but she looks like a weirdo also, so you were probably meant for each other.
Poor Edward Dutt0n. He’s a conservative that hates Liberals/progressives and tries to project onto them all the things that he knows describes his group. It must really suck for him to know that he belongs to the group that is on average less intelligent less accomplished, and yes, less healthy. White Libs actually are healthier and outlive conservatives. “Red” states are poorer and more backward than “blue’ states. lower levels of literacy lower GDP per capita, lower levels of social development, etc. And if you adjust for ethnicity and restrict analysis to white peple, white liberals have also significantly lower levels of criminality and anti-social behavior compared to liberals.
In fact, there is an *inverse* relationship between health and longevity on the one hand and fertility on the other. See here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/science/fertility-genes-lifespan.html
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2020.616207/full
Edward Dutton clearly doesn’t understand how antagonistic pleiotropy works. If he did, he’d understand that the real antagonism here is between fertility the trait that conservatives like Dutton praise above everything else, and almost all every positive life outcome such as high IQ, longevity, health, criminality and yes, mental health.
Edward Dutton also clearly doesn’t understand how natural selection works. There is no such thing as “group”selection. Selection works exclusively at the individual level. Certain environments can cause “patterns” of selections where random characteristics are more chosen than other for large groups of individuals, but selection is still individual.
Edward Dutton also doesn’t understand that most of the genetic selection of humans up to the Industrial Revolution revolved around immune-system related genes. Vaccination actually *freed* the Human genome from the burden of having to constantly focus all it’s attention on immunity to other things, like intelligence. For instance, the &4 allele of the APOE gene, which is the strongest causative factor in Alzheimer’s Disease, is under strong positive selection when infection rates are high because it helps the body fight infection at the cost of long-term brain health. APOE4 is much more prevalent among hunter-gatherers. So Edward Dutton is wrong again: the Industrial Revolution freed humans to become *healthier* especially in middle-age and old age.
Regarding liberal girls with purple hair, what is the matter, Dutton? Is this a fetish of yours? You’ve brought this up more than once. Has some Lib chick with purple hair turn you down and laugh at your for having a teeny weeny, or something? Conservatives don’t have some sort of monopoly on being good-looking. In fact, anyone that’s been to a MAGA rally and seen what those people look like can see such fallacy. Here is an imcomplete list of liberals that became famous for their looks:
– Brad Pitt
– Ben Affleck(progressive)
– Matt Damon
– Keanu reeves
– Tom Cruise
– Kevin Costner
– Matt Bomer
– Angelina Jolie
– Julia Roberts
– Scarlett Johansenn
– Alive Eve(progressive)
– Margot Robbie(progressive)
– Gwyneth Paltrow
– Alicia Vikander(goes without saying, since she’s Scandinavian)
– Megan Fox(progressive)
– Marion Cottiliard
– Taylor Hill(supermodel)
– Denise Richards(supermodel)
– Yael Shelbia.
And the list goes on and on and on and on. Conservatives only have Clint Eastwood, Arnie and Gina Carano, that looks more like a man than a woman.🤣
Here’s a *fact* :a nation made exclusively of white conservatives is basically Mexico that speaks English. White conservatives would not even be able to create a First World society on their own without the liberal part of the white population.
In fact, it is scientifically much more accurate to say that most of the differences between white liberals and conservatives can be explained by what evolutionary biologists call “R-selection” and “K-selection”. Conservatives have all the characteristics of being strongly R-selected or “fast life strategists”. Higher fertility, lower intelligence and more ethnocentric. White liberals have delayed fertility because they invest more in their children, so they wait until conditions are ideal.
Poor Edward Dutton. Maybe if one of those beautiful blond, 5’11, ultra-liberal Swedish Stacies from Minesssota or from actual Sweden had smiled at him and given him a shot, he wouldn’t have such visceral hatred for the poor Libs,
In the old days, marriage to girls as young as 12 was possible, but the parents would decide when the two would actually share a bed…Women reach peak health and fertility around 15-16, so when life expectancies were less than 30 years, there was pressure to have kids as soon as possible….
According to the researches of Professor Gregory Clark, elite families remains at top generationally for thousands years. Their genetic markers also remained at top. Politica systems will not change their status, both UK and China. All theoretical hypothesis like this post is at end just form of speculation without objective evidences like real science. True science is based on objective data.
A lot of speculations at end is not much different from average Joe’s BS.
TL;DR: Bitches be crazy.
The superficial details of relationships have changed but not the fundamentals. You will be better off with a women as long as: she doesn’t transgenderfy your kids, take all your money in a divorce or cheat on you. For the time being you probably need a sad prenuptial agreement which specifically covers these points. Most of the other new challenges in the modern relationship gauntlet are simply in the category of “life is hard, deal with it.”
You may be better off with a woman even if she does those things because you can’t win if you don’t play!
America’s Imperial founders weren’t woke. Those religious Anglo pioneers opening up the West.
But, agreed that every Imperial civilization eventually declines into decadence and collapses as did the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Roman Empire. So no surprise if the American Empire (and its Western colonies) goes the same way.
I’m doubtful about the “making us healthy once again” part.
The British fell into a continuous decline after WWI that only accelerated after Indian Independence (1947) and is still ongoing with no bottom in sight. Full on woke.
The feeble and decadent Ottoman Empire collapsed and was dismembered after WWI. The remnant is confused and divided Turkey.
The famously decadent last days of the Roman Empire also led to its defeat and dismemberment. The remnant being the mostly irrelevant (and woke) Italy that’s still going down.
Interestingly, the Jewish Empire which was at the climax of its power in 2000 (end of the “Jewish Century”) has been in fast decline ever since. Israel is in bad trouble (economic and social). Israel’s US golem looks like it may soon turn to dust and GenZ couldn’t care less about the supposed Holocaust and reject Jews across the board (Gaza).
The rising Imperial power is without a doubt China. It hasn’t yet reached the stage of “Imperial” self-awareness but it no doubt it will.
Do you really think anyone will read your comment and think anything other than, ‘Hmm. Here’s a paedophile who’s in denial’?
Hello Oliver! Married yet? Had kids?
Brilliant analysis free of the sentimental, moralistic cant that renders most conservative screeds against wokeness worthless. Conservative outrage as response to wokeness signals nothing but impotence and feeds woke narcissism because the woke like nothing better than to provoke outrage and thus validate their self-perception as social and cultural vanguard.
Nature, however, is quietly pitiless. As Dutton observes, the woke are self-sterilizing. Mike Judge did a comedic take on this in Idiocracy but he didn’t think things through far enough. Idiocracy can only be the penultimate step toward civilizational collapse and the reformation under harsh conditions of a traditional civilization.
Modernity is an unsustainable dysgenic interlude which we have been conditioned to regard as a path toward limitless “progress.” In reality, it is a path toward extinction. It is telling that in all premodern cultures, woman’s most hallowed power is the power to bring forth life. In modern societies, women have made a cult out of abortion.
To the extent that whites invented modernity and took it to its furthest limit, they will suffer the most from it. White nationalists may rave and rant about being “replaced” but whites brought this upon themselves. Too clever by half. Whatever portion of the white race will survive civilizational collapse will more closely resemble the “savages” they wiped out in the heyday of white expansion than the effete, neurotic types that define whiteness today.
One of the stupidest comment I ever read on unz.com.
It’s so dumb it must be a parody.
What a moron. And this list of Hollywood whores ( 70 % with plastic surgery ) … brainwashed and illiterate , they would turn nazis in one night if needed.
I think that comment of mine was useful because certainly the vast, vast majority are NOT clearly “mutants”.
She didn’t have tattoos nor piercings and didn’t intend to have ’em ever; also, she showed strong distaste for divorce. However, she was (probably still is) a feminist – at least, she’d call herself that.
I suppose she attained a PhD by now – which she intended to. Certainly she could be a University Prof, like her father is, given her IQ.
(I don’t recall what she was studying, maybe ’twas Economics…)
So… Is she a “mutant”? That is the question!
Well… She is at least 25% Jewish, probably 50%: I’ll ‘presume’ that’s key – Israeli Jews (even Ashkenazi ones) have a HIGH fertility despite HIGHER levels of mental disorders and the like… Genetic Purging happening‽
Unlikely to be the same person.
He appears to be from the US who claims his father went to Harvard.
An obvious troll though.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-roots-of-american-progressivism/#comment-6528177
https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=Peter+Serelic
I wonder why anyone would read a book which uses the word “Wokeness” in the title. Dutton is not even capable of using a scientific title. Woodley of Menie, after realizing that Dutton was a fraud, broke off all relations with him. Dutton keeps on making the claim that European Christians are evolving towards a state of being Group Selected, but Woodley of Menie rebutted him on this claim live on air. Woodley stated that unlike in the past, current Christian leaders don’t advocate that G-d has ordered European Christians to fight and die for the “glory” and advancement of European Christians. In the past, the Christian leaders contributed towards selection for a certain degree of Group Selected traits. But today, Christian leaders say that the only thing
G-d requires is for individuals to sincerely say to themselves “I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior,” and as long as they do that, they are guaranteed eternal hedonism, gluttony, and debauchery in Heaven. Again, Woodley of Menie rebutted Dutton live on air regarding his claim that European Christians are becoming Group Selected. Rather, what’s going on is that European Christians are facing Nuclear Family Unit selection, combined with religiosity. So, European males are acquiring genes for wanting to marry a female and have children, with a religious belief that Jesus Christ wants them to try their best to avoid engaging in homosexuality and transexuality. But that is it. These Christian Europeans are not acquiring genes for ethnocentrism or collective ethnic Altruism or a monumental/spiritual belief that European Christians have a destiny for “greatness” and “oneness” with the universe that they must aggressively fight for to the death to achieve. Quite the opposite, European Christians just mind their own business, engaging in Christ-approved hedonism such as over-eating, drinking, watching TV, playing sports, etc. Most European Christian males are fat.
This is SILLY, to an extent I’ve to evoke Brandolini’s Law.
Anyway: The title must be attractive, a ‘dry’ scientific title won’t sell as much.
Various of your other remarks are interesting.
For instance, you say,
However, if Dutton’s right: (at least) Mormons are becoming smarter, which correlates with not being fat.
BTW: Whites will become more ethnocentric naturally (I suppose) as due to all this miscegenation going on. Ethnic altruists are selecting out of the White gene pool by having non-White children, so the ones left will be stronger on Ethnic Nepotism trait.
Irony of ironies: Miscegenation becoming legalised, then liberalised, then promoted is a dream come true to racists!
.
.
.
Addendum to my 1st comment:
That anime/manga thingy – I included as a possible sign of “pro-Whiteness”, even if it’s happening subconsciously/unconsciously.
Think of (Jewess) Ayn Rand (!):
Her beau idéal for a hero, the “Randian hero”, is curiously very Aryan-looking.
..adaptive instincts which also seems to take that which is adaptive and make it into the will of God
What is adaptive today may not be tomorrow. The way of the dodo.
The species has to survive, and the ethnic group.. has to survive..
Really?
We would expect evolution to throw up a mechanism which would return us to genetic health..
I give up.
Indeed, that does sound at best quaint.
What does explain extinctions, then‽
My best guess:
Before humans could alter the environment… Say some average temperature changed in some habitat, so the life-forms in it that died out just couldn’t adapt as fast as necessary – despite ongoing Evolution for their survival.
.
.
.
Off-Topic but still within the confines of this website’s purposes:
Question to Dr Dutton,
Thoughts on the following search?
Does the name say it all? Investigating phoneme-personality sound symbolism in first names.
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2019-43758-001
Does the first letter of one’s name affect life decisions? A natural language processing examination of nominative determinism.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-75670-001
And, especially this one:
Can names shape facial appearance?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2405334121
At first, I thought “This is nonsense!” and maybe it’ll indeed be refuted. But, what if it’s TRUE?
Ron Unz in some article talked about “Weyl Analysis”: We can know a culture’s Zeitgeist by forenames given and as well the trends;
For instance,
Marie (“Mary”) was much more common in France in the past, which indicates more religion.
Naturally, by the way, we can only estimate France percentage of Muslim population due to the names! (As France does not provide data on religion, let alone, race.)
Blacks used to have “White forenames”, before the Civil Rights: Now their forenames seem completely made-up. And, no offence, in my opinion, frequently ridiculous.
Even Whites, nowadays parents are giving their children ‘unique’ names!
Megyn and not “Megan”, Abigayle and not “Abigail” etc.
Sensational Spelling!
So… if the 3rd paper link is right, could White facial shape be evolving towards less Christian-looking and more unique-looking‽
Did she ever get married and have her four children? She sounds like a classic Manic Pixie Dream Girl.
I don’t know. I won’t know because I wouldn’t stalk her – unless I stumble upon such info, by serendipity, via, say, we meet again, then I’d ask her so if the situation shows itself auspicious.
.
.
.
In my previous comment, after when I type the word “quaint”, I’d like to add the following:
The manner in which Dr Dutton describes how Evolution works is as if it has some kind of “conscience” of itself – very uncanny!
The manner in which Dr Dutton describes how Evolution works is as if it has some kind of “conscience” of itself – very uncanny!
Quite. I worked for an evolutionary biologist, an agnostic, for many years, and commented once that evolution by natural selection, as its operation is described by scientists, appears to possess agency. He did not disagree with me. Possibly my use of a neutral word, instead of “God”, made the idea seem more palatable.
I didn’t want to imply self-conscience, just “conscience”. Agency seems apt to describe Dutton’s phrasing, I suppose – maybe he wasn’t very careful due to writing hastily?
Or…
It is, rather, my CURRENT understading and knowledge the problem.
.
.
.
I am an atheist.
But I do my best to adapt over new evidence. Thus far, no-one could convince me I’m wrong regarding that.
(Personally, I’d like God to exist. Even if it’s just a Deistic one.)
Reading RationalWiki is no way to learn anything. It should be called DerangedWiki.
Life expectancy statistics are much prone to misinterpretation. Those terrible numbers (less than 30 years!) are averages, resulting from the fact that a significant number of babies and children died of socalled infectious illnesses. However, those who survived did so because of their inherently good constitution and did indeed live to a ripe old age.
Now, however, no matter how sick a child or young person gets, they are artificially kept alive and boosted into reproductive age and, well, look around you – how many truly hardy (white) folks do you see?
If simple natural methods can’t keep a baby alive (such as have been practiced in every corner of the world since the dawn of time), then maybe nature should be allowed to take its course.
Only slightly off-topic: time for me to haul out my story of what they did to the Hurler’s child of an acquaintance of mine: she was subjected to every painful, disgusting guinea-pig, “gotta-save-her-life-no-matter-what” procedure. Of course she died in misery. I hope there’s a god around to punish the demons who do these things to helpless children.
The only way is a humane Eugenics Programme.
Not that that would make us healthier, frankly, I think it’d just hinder us from becoming unhealthy. Good enough, to me.
Why? Because people would still save babies artificially who’d die in Nature. That cannot be prevented; if you’d make such procedures illegal, citizenry would revolt.
…Unless Gene-Editing is the way to go.
P.S.: in-vitro fertilisation is currently dysgenic, but perhaps Science will advance further in that area…
P.P.S.: if parents would have more children and such children earlier, perhaps they’d not try to “move mountains” to save unbelievably unhealthy children – research shows mothers with lots of children mourn less over their children’s deaths.
Thanks for replying. Yes, any program of eugenics must be humane and in accordance with Nature (which in vitro, etc. are not).
Maybe most important, you have to be careful about who you marry and make kids with. Your spouse may be into healthy eating & overall life style, but you still have to consider their background – do certain serious diseases or mental illness show up in ancestors?
Also, testing of the parents to see how healthy they are and then good nutrition for at least a year prior to conception. In some non civilized societies they gave the young married woman special, high test foods to eat because, in spite of their purported backwardness and lack of science, they knew what was necessary to make healthy children. Sure can’t say the same for us over here, except for a few “health freaks”. Here, doctors advise to “take a multi vitamin”. As if that is all there is to it. Humane, nature-respecting and normal birthing practices come next. Fetuses were not designed to be subjected to high frequency sound waves, just for one example. Find a smart midwife and aware doctor.
That is interesting, about the woman’s emotional reaction to loss of a child. However, no woman should have any more children than her body and mind can healthily cope with. Do you have any idea how much pregnancy, birth and nursing take out of a woman’s body. I sure do.
And – no elderly fathers (or mothers, though they are less to blame for defective or weak offspring). You just can’t take that chance.
I didn’t know that rationalwiki was unreliable. Who can you trust nowadays…seems everyone has an agenda and they will lie to promote it.
I remember a Psychology Professor who was capable of publishing a peer-reviewed article in a mainstream journal arguing for the Gov’t to control whom you can or cannot marry – for IQ reasons, if I remember correctly.
I always found that FUNNY because it’s way more authoritarian and off-the-reservation than anything I’d ever propose:
The basically only thing that exceeds Ron Paul’s view on Gov’t is that I believe the Gov’t should attend for:
“Nudging” some individuals into sterilising themselves based IQ and a few other traits, plus “nudging” some individuals into, on the other hand, being fertile…
P.S.: of course, if Marriage and Divorce is separated from the State, that’d be great!
…But, one thing that’s underrated is VIRGINITY:
The 2nd most stable arrangement: a couple whose members only have had sex with each other.
The 1st most stable arrangement: a couple whose members only have had sex with each other after marriage!
(I’d like to see more research into this area, doesn’t nearly get as much attention as deserved.)
In short: the less sexual partners people have, the more they bond. Results: less divorces, and, in turn, more children.
Well just see what they have to say about our host Steve, as unhateful a chap as ever put together a spreadsheet.
(although very slow with comment approval, but “sufferance is the badge of all our tribe”)
Thank you for that info, Y.A.A.
It’s like saying weed is a group level adaptation for your garden, and the plants in it will grow stronger in the long run.
This is Ed’s stupidest article yet, although I generally disagreed with Ed before I generally accepted some of his arguments. My beef with Ed was that his approach was wrong (specifically his using social science research which has the problem replication and application) but that he was actually right in some generalities.
However, like you noticed, this time the twisted logic is off the scale causing me to lose the little respect I had for him.
Using his twisted logic you can actually have anything stand for anything else-wokeness is good for us because…no Ed you are just being stupid. Really, substitute anything in the woke and whatever portion of this statement; ” Wokeness is actually good because it ensures the survival of the group because it causes whatever.”-you’ll find that, on a verbal level, it works with any concept buuut in the real world it just ain’t so.
The idiocy of this article is really beyond understanding. Ed should stop discussing things with his own little group of mutual butt kissers and go out and experience the real world or BETTER YET just have a question and answer session on the Unz Review but he won’t do that because he is afraid that it would expose his shallow intellect. He’ll rather play pretend social scientist which he is. He reminds of Amos and Andy on the old radio show-two morons who use big words which they do not know the meaning of to cover up their lack of understanding.
Ed (if it is really you) you are a social scientist not a pub nob-explain your position and don’t use gratuitous insults (it’s not really even a good insult-something an elementary school kid would use). Social science would never get anywhere if we had BF Skinner calling Carl Rogers; “Rogers is just jealous because he could never get pigeons to strut to a polka beat so don’t believe that sh..head. There ’nuff said!”
I’m sure calling someone a latent pedophile because he disagrees with you makes you all feel good inside but it really is unworthy of a social science (or any science) debate-remember Soapy Sam kinda blew it when he asked Huxley if he was descended from apes on his mom’s or dad’s side. You know that and I think you are better than that.
You kind of blew it with the Unz Review crowd when in response to something someone pointed out you said that everyone knows that that somebody is an obvious latent pedophile-like I said explain your position as a response or just say that you feel his interpretation was wrong.
Basically anything can be anything you want it to be if you believe it hard enough.
Speculation is interesting and worthwhile but, yes indeed, it needs to be backed up by scientific research.
Dutton speculates a lot which, by itself, isn’t that bad but then he blows it by almost instantly citing some studies that he says back up his speculation.
The fact is you will always find some social science research that back up anything you speculate about-the research, however, needs to be examined if it is accurate, valid and replicated and even then it just might not be relevant. All of this takes time (often on the scale of years) and money, yet Dutton just seems not to care that social science has some hindrances-he just thinks about an idea and flies off and writes a book.
Books about social science questions are a dime-a-dozen in airport book stores, often by Nobel Prize winning researchers but a rigorous examination of such books find only a few of them being worthwhile in the long run (the examples of such pop psych books are actually too numerous to count)..
Dutton should speculate a lot less (and write less books) and do more focused applied research but that is not his nature and in fact I really doubt (going by how he writes) he has the ability to do focused relevant and applicable social science research (but he sure can jibber jabber).
Peter Seleric’s comment had some valid points but on the whole it had obvious major weaknesses.
I understand the tone was mocking but here was your chance to shine-you could have pointed out the weaknesses in a logical manner but instead your reply was “Hello Oliver! Married yet? Had kids?”-
Again Seleric’s mocking tone was unwarranted (although I understand where Peter Seleric would get frustrated with you) but remember you are a social scientist, just point out the weakness of his argument (after all you always stress you are qualified to that). I mean if you write social science books and do research you should be used to critiques or, at least, accept that you will be critiqued.
When you attend science conferences do you answer; “Hello Oliver! Married yet? Had kids?” when someone asks you a question in an open floor discussion? Do you really behave like that when having a back-and-forth social science discussion?
The thing about social scientists speculating about human behavior is that it leads you off into bizarre tangents and conclusions (libertarians are notorious for doing that also). Just this Dutton article that wokeness is actually good in the long run is a excellent example of this. Or speculating about alternative non-traditional marriage concepts etc..
Speculating can be useful but as a technique it needs to be limited since no-one really knows when to stop.
Let’s face it, the person who wrote this is just a bad scientist on so many levels-he is somewhat familiar with the lingo and thinks by using this lingo he will impress people but really doesn’t know what it means underneath.
Considering the fact that the vast, vast majority of species that ever existed are now extinct puts his—
“..adaptive instincts which also…The species (race) has to survive…We would expect evolution to throw up a mechanism…” statements into perspective.
As an aside, L Ron Hubbard also thought the single most important thing was the species surviving and he also expected nature provided mechanisms for survival (yes, yes nature does indeed provide mechanisms for survival but not in the way L Ron Hubbard thought- and these mechanism certainly are not blue haired harrigans yelling at you as the author seems to think). Like the author of this article, L Ron Hubbard also thought that he was a scientist and he shared his “discoveries” with the world-funny how “great” minds think alike.
RationalWiki has a major woke slant and snarkily denigrates conservative thinkers, even so it is useful if one wants to examine pseudoscience topics like UFOs and parapsychology.
Thanks for that information!
except THAT WHILE the woke idiots are weakening us, the depraved ruling class is flooding us with all the scum of the world to terrorize, attack, rape, kill, and ultimately replace us.
We can definitely get rid of all the woke idiots but we won;t survive an organized invasion by our own governments, unless we repel them both, the invaders and rotten politicians,
And it must be done now.
This is why Russia now represents hope for Europe:
Russia opens up residency to foreigners ‘who share values’
https://www.rt.com/russia/602802-russia-residency-traditiona-values/
Individuals with appropriate “spiritual and moral values” will be able to obtain temporary residence permits
Foreign citizens who share the “traditional values” fostered in Russia and disagree with the “neoliberal” principles imposed by their governments can apply for a residency permit in the country, according to a decree signed on Monday by President Vladimir Putin.
Individuals who espouse the same “spiritual and moral” values as Russia can apply for a temporary residence permit without sitting Russian language and history exams, which are otherwise a prerequisite.
The opportunity is being offered to foreigners who disagree with what the decree describes as the “destructive neoliberal ideology.”
The list of the countries in question will be determined by the government, the document adds. The foreign ministry will also streamline the issuance of three-month visas for those interested in moving to Russia for ideological reasons. The decree will come into force on September 1.