Category: evolution

A Duel of Wits

Between unarmed opponents.

See this.

There is some good here, but also considerable nonsense. If the characterization of Richard Spencer’s racial views is correct, then Johnson’s racial views are sounder from an empiricist-materialist standpoint. However, there is much lacking here from a more hardcore scientific standpoint (the wages of “Traditionalism” I suppose). 

The whole “transplanted brains” scenario is absurd and meaningless intellectual masturbation.  What could one do? There are racial – and subracial (cue Durocher’s heavy breathing) – differences in brain structure that can be identified via imaging methodology.  If one were really determined to obtain a definitive identification, a small brain biopsy can yield DNA to assay for genetic ancestry and thus prove whether or not the brain tissue was of Negro origin. As far as the ridiculous question as to why build a community on race instead of other characteristics, I point both interviewer and interviewee to Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Adaptive fitness is the ultimate interest of evolved organisms (such as humans), and any group that promotes their ultimate interests will outcompete and replace those who do not. And, after all, one can always form these narrower communities within your racial group while preserving EGI, but the opposite is not possible.  One can form your little group of Tolkien fans among Whites in an all-White ethnostate, but a multi-racial Tolkien group that is not stratified by race (by definition, if it is multiracial and stratified only by Tolkienism, it will not be stratified by race) will constitute a loss of genetic interest.  Smaller groups within a White ethnostate will retain the advantages of a concentrated EGI; on the other hand, smaller groups of Whites in, say, a multiracial Tolkien Fanboy state, will suffer as a result of a loss of EGI, itself a consequence of the multiracialism of such a state. In the latter case, the situation can be retrieved only by racial separation – so why not  divide on the basis of race to begin with?

Stupidity about gender-specific nations also fails – I remember Bowery writing (correctly) long ago that gender/sex is not a genetic interest.  A man has more genetic commonality with female relatives and co-ethnics than with male non-ethnic strangers. One could subdivide a racially pure state by gender (for what purpose?) but the racial stratification must come first if one is concerned with biological fitness. If you are not concerned with fitness, fine, but that’s not an evolutionarily stable situation. You’ll end up in the dustbin of genetic history, replaced by more ethnocentric others. These are reasonably obvious arguments.  I would also point out that sexual reproduction has evolutionary advantages via increased genetic diversity. No doubt that a sufficiently advanced technology could artificially impose independent assortment and recombination on a single-sex artificial reproduction regimen, but, again, for what purpose?  While eliminating the yeastbucket requirement would no doubt be advantageous in many ways, what would be the sexual outlet for such an all-male society?  Widespread homosexuality?  I’ll take a pass on that. There are probably some things best left unchanged in human nature and the division between two sexes for reproduction is likely to be one of those.

And what’s with this obsession with Rushton and Lynn?  Look, the broad theories of both of them are likely true, but that’s as far as it goes. R-K theory on race (that I independently came up with in the 1980s after reading an ecology textbook) is undoubtedly true on the general level of – Blacks and Browns have more offspring and invest less in them; Whites and Yellows have fewer offspring but invest more in them. And, as well, Blacks and Browns have faster life histories (earlier maturation and reproduction and earlier death) than do Whites and Yellows. If Rushton had stuck with that, instead of trying to shoehorn every racial characteristic (including penis size) into the formulation, he’d be more respected today. Likewise, Lynn is likely correct that there is a general association between national IQ and economic productivity (as measured by GDP) and general accomplishment; the problem occurs when he falls too much in love with his theory (as did Rushton with his ideas) and tries to fit every data point into the pattern, with ludicrous “estimates of IQ,” racial history fairy tales about admixture, and hand waving “just so stories” to explain anomalies. The problem, I suppose, is that the broad theories are a bit too obvious and common sense, plain to any reasonably intelligent and honest observant individual, and so there isn’t much “intellectual prestige” in merely stating the obvious.  Therefore, ego-driven “intellectuals” have to build castles of sand to demonstrate how very clever they are.

Counter-Currents commentary:

Craig
Posted July 1, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Yang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.

Craig, meet Greg Johnson. And Richard Spencer. And many more.

Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.

There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.

Craig, meet David Duke.  And Richard Spencer.

Then there’s John Morgan:

John Morgan
Posted July 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink
Rep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.

You know she supports reparations for Negroes, right?

A one, a one, a one two three….

Ted Cruz at least spoke up about this.  Antifa Don Trump, The God Emperor?  Silence.

MAGA!  Pepe! Kek!

Readers of this blog know that I am no apologist for homosexuals (of either sex) but I’m no apologist for hypocrisy either.  I mean, really….  Apparently, “homophobia” – “vile” or otherwise – is perfectly acceptable in the service of “movement” feuds.  Perhaps, Antifa can be critiqued in other ways than their penchant for sending gay Asians to the hospital.

Racing the Red Queen

What should we do?

Read this.

Also read this.

The Quota Queens like to say that their critics do not offer alternative approaches. That is, of course, a bald-faced lie; I have many times outlined strategies and tactics.  Here I do so again, with an emphasis on adaption – adapting to the situation your enemy puts you in, challenging that enemy with your own pressure, forcing the enemy to prove that they can adapt to your new tactics, and if they do, then you counter-adapt yourself.  Racing the Red Queen. Do things different – the same old story of “education” and “D’Nations” accomplishes nothing except enrich the grifters.

The fact that the enemy may adapt to your new tactics is no reason for not trying those tactics.  Quite the opposite.  You should take advantage of any opportunity to move into new strategic and tactical niche spaces, and you should force your opponent to prove they can effectively adapt to your new approaches. This is the Red Queen Hypothesis in action.  Constant adaption and response to the adaption of others, an evolutionary arms race, is part of the reality of evolved organisms, and it is part of the reality of successful movements as well.

In military history, nations come up with new weapons and tactics, gain an advantage, then see that advantage lost as their opponent adapts and compensates.  Then newer weapons and tactics are devised. In sports, a player or a team has an approach, is successful, then must change when the opponent adapts. No one gives up in advance.  A nation does not say “Hey, if we come up with an ICBM, our opponent will come up with an anti-ballistic missile system, so what’s the point?”  No, they build their missiles, and they FORCE the opposition to prove they can come up with an effective response, at which point the process of adaption and counter-adaption continues.  A baseball, player may be unable to hit a curveball, so pitchers feed him a steady diet of curveballs.  Either he adapts and learns to hit the curveball, or he’s finished. The pitcher does not say, “Hey, I better not throw curveballs, he may learn to hit them, I’ll just throw fastballs and get hammered.”  No, FORCE the other fellow to prove they can adapt, put pressure on him, test him, exhaust him, and if he does adapt, then you counter-adapt in turn.

At some point, it is possible that one side is no longer able to adapt.  Species become extinct.  Nations are defeated and wiped from the face of history.  Baseball players retire when they cannot perform. So it goes.  We must FORCE the System to prove it can adapt – after all, that’s what they are doing to us.  At some point, one side or the other will reach a breaking point.  Better them than us. But if we do nothing, business as usual with no adaption, we are doomed to extinction.

Now, one can make an argument that – rarely – it may be prudent to keep a strategy in reserve for use at the most propitious time, but that should not be an excuse for inaction, for business as usual.  To the extent that some aspect of an overarching strategy should be kept in strategic reserve, that’s an issue for high-level discussion and debate (in private, among real leaders, none of which currently exist).  Given our current situation, I don’t see that any of the things proposed here should be kept in reserve.  These are all obvious and necessary things that need to be done now.  Thus:

1. Get out in the real world, the analog world, stop being so dependent on the Internet.  I am NOT saying to stop digital activism, of course not. That’s what this blog is, after all.  But we are going to have to get back into “meat space,” and do it correctly.

2. Finally, defectives must be eschewed.  Finally, we need to stress quality over quantity – not just talk about it, as the Quota Queens like to do, but actually DO IT.  I talk about identifying defectives here, and the need for ruthless intolerance here. Is this a person who you would be comfortable associating with in private life?  Are they a drug addict?  A pervert?  A freak?  A tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist?  Some bizarre ethnic fetishist?  An effeminate?  A hedonistic womanizing gamester?  Someone with a non-White (usually Asian) spouse?  A grifter?  A gambler?  A hypocrite?  A video gamester or porn gobbler, spending all their time indoors, indulging in their vice?  How about saying NO to these people?

We should follow the lead of Codreanu and the Legionary Movement.  The New Man comes first, THEN we worry about programs and policies.  We need BETTER PEOPLE, and then we worry about nitpicking details of ideology.  You would think that “race realists” and “eugenicists” would understand the need for better people. The point is, the “better” is not only racial characteristics and IQ – it is basic character more than anything else.

3. A real pro-White movement should be for all Whites.  If a group or leader purports to be for “all Whites” – which most do – then they should walk the walk, not just talk the talk.  We need an end to the ethnic fetishism and the affirmative action program.  All the low hanging fruit of dissatisfied and potentially ethnocentric White ethnics should be picked – and not just for dues-paying stepandfetchits, but as equal and valued members of the endeavor. I realize that Der Movement’s ideology is that the White ethnics are stupid and inferior, and so the supposition is that these people can continue to be hoodwinked, but, no, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The sort of intelligent and productive people you would (or should) really want to recruit will soon realize that they are being taken advantage of, being asked to sacrifice for someone else’s interests. That assumes such people are being recruited to begin with, that they are not ignored or actively repulsed.

4. We need a real media presence, our own presence, not to be dependent upon the System.  “But we have no money,” the Quota Queens cry.  That’s a lie   Here’s your money.

5. Get involved in electoral politics.  Force the System to become an OVERT banana republic (or like the EU – which is the same thing) and ban political parties, jail opposition candidates, censor political campaigns, etc.  Force them to unmask themselves, force them to make it open and plain to White Americans that the System is an oppressive sham. Either the System goes on that path, which in the long term is untenable for stability, or they accept White nationalism in the political arena, which is also untenable for stability.  Ultimately, once we get over the rough patches, it is win-win for us, and lose-lose for them, IF done correctly. To be done correctly, see all the other things, discussed above, which also needs to be done.  I discussed the political option in more detail previously:

It is one thing to deplatform a blogger or YouTuber.  It is one thing to engage in lawfare against cosplayers and their enablers in Charlottesville.  It is one thing to label powerless “movement leaders “as “national security threats.”  It is one thing to push “hate crime and speech laws” against the atomized Internet lumpenproletariat.

But it is another thing entirely to publicly engage in overt banana republic tactics to shut down political campaigns, persecute political opponents, and censor political candidates.  Yes, America is far down the road to leftist victory, yes the System is corrupt and anti-White and degenerate and illegitimate, and yes Whites usually take abuse unlimited without reacting and fighting back.  Yes, that is all true.  But, still…there are limits to all of that, even now.  There are limits to how far the System will go at this time. And I believe those limits fall just short of the System completely unmasking itself, it falls just short of overtly shutting down the political opposition.

Yes, there will be ridicule.  Yes, there will be unfair media coverage and smears.  Yes, if things are going too well, then they’ll try a media blackout and ignore us.  Yes, the System will allow their Antifa hired hands run wild with impunity.  But all these things are happening now, are happening already (under the Far-Left God Emperor), so that’s nothing new.  If the “movement” is concerned with increased official persecution, then it may be prudent to shift at least some of the activist efforts into an arena in which the System will incur real costs – very serious costs indeed – if they try to censor and directly interfere.  And that arena is the political arena – the arena that Joe and Jill Sixpack consider sacrosanct in their faded vision of what America used to be.

If the System wants to shut down White advocacy, then make it as difficult and as painful and as potentially self-destructive for them as possible.  Force them into the position in which the only way to shut down White advocacy is to engage in blatant and public banana republic third world authoritarianism, force them to either accept White advocacy in the political arena or risk unmasking themselves to White America several decades too early.

The riposte would be – but, political candidates can be persecuted.  Just look at Le Pen in France!   My response is that we have to act now, before things get to that point, leveraging the meager First Amendment protections we have left. Yes, if we do nothing now, eventually we’ll reach the point of Europe and well beyond – well beyond because social pricing is worse in the USA, so if we lose the remaining constitutional brakes to leftist tyranny, we will be in fact worse than Europe.  Again, that’s why it is imperative to get started now.  And, again, the American situation, culture, and traditions of free speech (never mind the legalistic constitutional protections) are quite different than in Europe.  What France can do with minimal blowback would result in a rather unpleasant reaction here, even among cowardly omega race White Americans.  We may eventually reach the level of France, and worse, but for now, it’s not the same.  The cost/benefit ratio for the American System is different from that of France.

The System will adapt to these changes? Maybe. Let them prove it.  Let them exhaust themselves doing it.  Let them expose themselves as hypocritical mendacious totalitarians to do it. Let them awaken even the most retarded cucked White weaklings to do it. Note to Der Movement: The System has already adapted to all your current tactics – your “shitposting,” your “D’Nations,” your “education” and “metapolitics,” your freakishness, your affirmative action policy, all of it.  The Red Queen has passed you by, my friends, passed you by in a speeding automobile while you stay gibbering incoherently on the street corner. In the continuous evolutionary arms race between competing ideologies, the System adapts, and the Far Right – allegedly all about “eugenics” and “biology” and “memes” and “evolution”- stays stagnant, repeating the same mistakes over and over again.  The Yang Gang will save us!  Come one now, at this point, isn’t it obvious that business as usual is an utter failure? It is a failure for actual activist accomplishment, admittedly not a failure as a money-making enterprise for all of your fearless leaders.

The Direction of Evolution

Diversification, integration, and cooperation. 

Read here. Excerpts, emphasis added:

Abstract

Two great trends are evident in the evolution of life on Earth: towards increasing diversification and towards increasing integration. Diversification has spread living processes across the planet, progressively increasing the range of environments and free energy sources exploited by life. Integration has proceeded through a stepwise process in which living entities at one level are integrated into cooperative groups that become larger-scale entities at the next level, and so on, producing cooperative organizations of increasing scale (for example, cooperative groups of simple cells gave rise to the more complex eukaryote cells, groups of these gave rise to multi-cellular organisms, and cooperative groups of these organisms produced animal societies). The trend towards increasing integration has continued during human evolution with the progressive increase in the scale of human groups and societies. The trends towards increasing diversification and integration are both driven by selection. An understanding of the trajectory and causal drivers of the trends suggests that they are likely to culminate in the emergence of a global entity. This entity would emerge from the integration of the living processes, matter, energy and technology of the planet into a global cooperative organization. Such an integration of the results of previous diversifications would enable the global entity to exploit the widest possible range of resources across the varied circumstances of the planet. This paper demonstrates that it’s case for directionality meets the tests and criticisms that have proven fatal to previous claims for directionality in evolution.

Diversification – consistent with this essay about racial differentiation and the evolutionary benefit of prejudice.

Integration – consistent with the pan-European perspective, which itself is compatible with diversification, since it by no means supports or implies any sort of European panmixia.

As far as any “global entity” goes – even with cooperation, there are differences of interests within the components of that cooperation (yes, even among Europeans) – there needs to be balance.  There is nothing per se wrong with global cooperation – as long as White interests – fundamentally and foremost White survival and genetic continuity – are part of the equation.  Otherwise, no global cooperation should occur, and without Whites – the glue that would hold it all together – such cooperation will not be possible.  Why should Whites participate in a process that leads to their own extinction?  That’s a prescriptive question, because descriptively, that is precisely what Whites are currently doing.

This paper presents a case for directionality in evolution that does not suffer from the deficiencies that have undermined other claims.

I’m not convinced by the mechanistic arguments (or even the main thesis of directionality) – but neither do I reject them – but there are other points of interest here.

It should be emphasized from the outset that the claim outlined here is made in relation to the evolution of all living processes on Earth, including humans and human organizations. As the paper will demonstrate, the trajectory of evolution can only be properly understood if the evolution of all living processes is taken into account, ultimately as a whole. In particular, the full nature of the trajectory cannot be identified and understood by focusing on, for example, only biological evolution. As we shall see, human cultural evolution and the evolution of human organisations and technology (including artificial intelligence) play a critically important role in driving the trajectory beyond a certain point. 

That is all consistent with MacDonald’s “group evolutionary strategies” (which Derbyshire pretended not to understand – after all, we can’t get “Rosie” upset now, can we?).

The nature of the evolutionary mechanisms that explore possibility space prove to be far less important in driving the trajectory than is the structure of the possibility space. In particular, the trajectory is shaped primarily by the nature and location of evolutionary attractors in possibility space.

Thus, by altering the environment, we can change the “possibility space” and the “evolutionary attractors” to shift “directionality” where we wish it to go, no?  More racist Whites, please.

Other parts of paper:

Section 2 of the paper begins to outline the case for a particular form of overall directionality. It identifies a large-scale pattern that is evident in the evolution of life on Earth.

Section 3 provides the pattern with micro-foundations by presenting a model which demonstrates that this pattern is driven by natural selection and other accepted evolutionary processes.

Section 4 subjects the model and its key predictions to appropriate tests, including those that have been failed by other claims for overall directionality.

Section 5 concludes the paper by providing an overview of the trajectory of evolution and discussing some of its key implications.2. A large-scale pattern

If we stand back from the evolution of life on Earth and view it as a whole, a number of patterns are apparent.

An obvious trend is that living processes have diversified as evolution proceeded. When life first began on Earth, it was limited to exploiting only a tiny proportion of available free energy sources under a very restricted range of environmental conditions. From there living processes have diversified progressively as evolution unfolded, spreading across the planet, adapting to an ever-widening range of environmental conditions and exploiting more and more sources of free energy. This trend towards increasing diversification has continued up until the present with the emergence of humans, albeit now mainly through the processes of cultural evolution, rather than through gene-based adaptation and speciation.

Racial differentiation.  The cultural part is consistent with MacDonald’s theses.  However, while change today may be mainly cultural, it is not exclusively so.  Genetic adaption continues.

But a less obvious trend that moves in a very different direction is also apparent. As well as the trajectory towards increasing diversification, there is also a trend towards increasing integration. As the evolution of life on Earth has unfolded, living processes have increasingly come to be integrated into cooperative organizations of larger and larger scale.

Imperium Europa.

This progressive integration of organisms into cooperative organizations of increasing scale is not limited to evolution driven by gene-based natural selection. The trend has continued in human evolution where cultural evolutionary processes now predominate: small kin groups were integrated into bands, bands were integrated into tribes, these formed the constituents of kingdoms and city states, and these in turn have been integrated into nation states (Stewart, 2000, Turchin, 1977).

And Imperiums?

At each step in this process of integration, smaller-scale entities are integrated into cooperative organizations that become larger-scale entities at the next level of organization. Typically the larger-scale entities undergo a relatively rapid diversification and adaptive radiation (e.g. see Knoll and Bambach, 2000). As evolution unfolds, this step-wise process repeats itself, producing cooperative organizations of living processes of greater and greater scale. At each step, a new level of nesting of entities within larger-scale entities arises. And as evolution proceeds, entities with greater levels of nestedness emerge. The result is the familiar nested-hierarchical structure of living processes.

If the idea of nested, hierarchical structures sounds familiar with respect to EGI, then you have been paying attention; for example, read this.  There are concentric circles of racial and ethnic interests, which ultimately conflate to nested circles of genetic interest.  Race-based levels of interest and ethnic-based circles can be compatible.

Like the trend towards diversification, the trend towards integration seems to be continuing apace at present. Humans are increasingly integrating other living processes into its organizations through activities such as farming, aquaculture and broader ecosystem management. And human organization itself seems likely to continue to increase in scale. Although rudimentary, the League of Nations and the United Nations were early attempts to build supra-national organizations on a global scale. 

And they have been gross failures, for not taking into account those nested interests; with the UN today waging war against the most fundamental interests of the European peoples.

Some forms of economic organization are already global, and regional cooperatives of nation states such as the European Union have emerged. Global crises such as human-induced climate change seem to be increasingly evoking coordinated responses across nation states. 

Yes, Whites will do the solving, while China will continue to pollute.  A coordinated response?

The idea that some form of global governance is essential for human survival and flourishing is now strongly supported by many leading international relations researchers (e.g. see Craig, 2008) and economists (e.g. see Walker et al., 2009).

Shilling for globalism. The nationalist-populist response extant today suggests that the lower levels of nested interests are not being properly cared for by global managers, and in the absence of such care, and in the absence of a mechanism to fairly adjudicate competing interests, you cannot expect lower level nests to stick with the program. Global solutions are not meant to be a White racial suicide pact.

That cooperation can produce significant fitness advantages is not controversial (e.g. see Corning, 1983, Dugatkin, 1999, Miller, 1978, Ridley, 1996, Stewart, 2000). Cooperative organizations have the potential to be more successful than isolated individuals. Whatever the evolutionary challenges, living processes can respond to them more effectively if they form cooperative organizations and if their actions are coordinated. In part this is because cooperation enables the exploitation of synergies, including through specialization and division of labour (Corning, 1983). Furthermore, the larger the scale of any cooperative organization, the more resources are commanded by it, the greater its power, the larger the impact and scale of its actions, the greater the potential for collective adaptation and intelligence, and therefore the wider the range of environmental challenges that it can meet. 

Pan-European cooperation.  Group selection.

But cooperation does not evolve easily (e.g. see Boyd and Richerson, 2005, Buss, 1987, Olson, 1965, Williams, 1966). The reasons for this are well understood. Consider a population of living entities that compete for limited resources. Entities that invest resources in beneficial cooperation but fail to capture sufficient benefits of that cooperation, will tend to be out-competed. Other entities that take the benefits of cooperation without investing in the cooperation (free riders) will tend to do better than co-operators. Free riders undermine the capacity of co-operators to capture the benefits created by their cooperation.

So, free riders constitute the “cooperation problem.”  This has been discussed in detail at this blog, reflecting the large amount of analysis of the free rider problem by Salter and MacDonald.  The author continues:

If co-operators within a group of entities were able to capture all the benefits of their cooperation, cooperative organization would self-organize (in more general terms, the cooperation problem would be solved comprehensively if all the entities in a group capture the impacts of their actions on the group as a whole, whether the impacts are beneficial or harmful) (Stewart, 2000). Cooperation in which the benefits to the individual exceed the costs to the individual would be selected at the individual level (unless some alternative, more effective cooperation emerged). If this fundamental condition for cooperative self-organization were met, individual entities that engage in cooperation would out-compete non-co-operators. It would be in the evolutionary/adaptive interests of individuals to cooperate. As a consequence, the group would be able to explore the possibility space for cooperative organization, and any form of cooperation that was discovered and which was more advantageous would be able to persist in the population. 

One has to suppress free riding and ensure that cooperation benefits the cooperator more than it harms.  This has all been discussed here in great detail, and studies have shown that ethnocentric cooperation can outcompete free riding.  Leftists and HBDers may not want to hear that, but that is the reality, nevertheless.  Also see this.

…are there circumstances in which co-operators can capture sufficient of the benefits of cooperation to enable some simpler forms of cooperation to persist?

Yes.

Co-operators will capture proportionately more of the benefits of cooperation if they interact cooperatively with other co-operators more often than if all cooperative interactions are random. This will ensure that the benefits of cooperation are more likely to be shared amongst co-operators than leak to free-riders. If this condition is met, co-operators will capture a disproportionate share of the benefits of cooperation, and may capture sufficient to outweigh the costs of cooperation and the benefits that ‘leak’ to free riders. To the extent that this condition is met, co-operators will be collectively autocatalytic (they will collectively facilitate each other’s success), and cooperative organization will be able to persist and be a target of selection (Ulanowicz, 2009).

And the aforementioned analysis has determined that, yes, properly constructed cooperative structures can defeat and outcompete free riding.  The next time an HBDer engages in rants about “free riding makes ethnic nepotism impossible” – they are lying to you, and they have an agenda.  They want to convince Whites not to engage in ethnic nepotism, so that Jews and Asians can have the whole field to themselves, sans competition.

It is conceivable that this condition could be met stochastically at times in a population. But it is likely to be met far more reliably if the cooperative interactions within the population are biased in some way. 

Two main ways in which this bias can occur are:

1) Population structure: cooperative interactions may be biased because the population of entities is structured in ways that increase the likelihood that co-operators interact with other co-operators…Or the population may be formed into groups that tend to concentrate co-operators and restrict invasion by free-riders (e.g. Okasha, 2006).

Exclude parasitic ethnies.

2) Active selection: interactions may also be biased because co-operators selectively choose to interact with other entities that are more likely to be co-operators (conversely, they may also selectively exclude or punish entities that are more likely to be non-co-operators). 

Punish White traitors.  No ethnostate for you!

If the cooperation problem is to be overcome comprehensively, free-riding must be prevented, and as far as possible, the benefits of cooperation must go to the co-operators that create them. If this is to be achieved consistently and comprehensively in relation to a group of entities, special arrangements that have three key characteristics need to be in place (Stewart, 2000): 

1) Power: the arrangements must have power over the entities in the group (including over co-operators and free riders), and the power to re-distribute the benefits of cooperation amongst members of the group in favour of co-operators. Power means the ability to influence or constrain without being influenced in return. If the arrangements could be influenced in return by those they need to control, control would break down. For example, free riders would be able to escape effective suppression by the arrangements.

We must have the technology of the state, and impose social controls against free riding.  Libertarianism is poison.  Hyper-individualism is poison.  There must be the power to enforce reciprocity in cooperation for genetic interests.

2) Evolvability: the arrangements must be evolvable/adaptable. This enables the arrangements to explore the space of possibilities for supressing free-riders and for supporting beneficial cooperation. It gives the arrangements the capacity to optimize their use of power over entities, and to adapt their control as free-riders and other non-co-operators evolve and adapt to escape their control.

Fossilized dogma is no good.  The power structures – the “arrangements” for suppressing free riding and facilitating cooperation – must evolve.  No doubt free riding will evolve in an attempt to evade detection and suppression.  There will be an ‘arms race.”

3) Alignment of interests: the evolutionary/adaptive interests of the arrangements must be aligned with the overall evolutionary/adaptive interests of the group of entities that it manages. Evolvability/adaptability per se is not enough. Unless interests are aligned in this way, the arrangements will not necessarily evolve/adapt in the direction needed to solve the cooperation problem. They will not necessarily use their power and evolvability to suppress free-riders and to support cooperation.

This is crucial. The “arrangements” must have the same interests as the managed entities, or else the “arrangements” themselves will be free riders. Consider the global elites of today who have – or at least perceive themselves to have – a different set of interests as the populations they manage.  This is a dystopian scenario for genetic interests.  The system must be set up so it is reinforcing a common set of interests between manager and the managed, so that the evolvability of managers is in the direction of more effective management and away from exploitive free-riding.  We want symbiosis, not parasitism.

The problem is how to achieve this, and there are no easy answers.  Throughout human history, managerial elites – even when they started out as sincere and authentic representatives of group interests – have become isolated from the managed group and have descended into rent-seeking, exploitative, free-riding behavior. This is virtually a law of human nature, an inevitability – in the absence of some sort of powerful counter-balance this trend.  One can say – “make the arrangements, the managers, answerable “to the people” via “democratic processes.”  But, of course, the managers have the power to subvert those “democratic processes” to their advantage, which is happening in the West today. This post is not the place to delve into this problem, but it is a problem that needs to be solved.

It is useful to classify the constraints applied by management processes into two categories, although the categories represent extremes on a continuum: 

1) Prescriptive constraints: these specify more or less precisely the particular outcomes that occur in the managed group. For example, DNA determines the specific proteins that are produced in a cell, including the quantities. And in a human command economy, the central authority prescribes specific economic outcomes, such as the nature and volume of the consumer goods that are to be produced. Where constraints are prescriptive, evolvability resides primarily in the manager, not in the other entities in the group.

Note the last part – “evolvability resides primarily in the manager” – in this case DNA.  Anyone remember the insanity of J Richards and his claim that selection works ultimately at the level of the phenotype, not the genotype?  More “movement” madness.  Of course, it’s DNA, the genotype, not the phenotype.

2) Enabling constraints: these achieve outcomes that are best for the group without specifying what those outcomes are. They accomplish this by aligning the interests of group members with the interests of the group as a whole, and then letting the entities adapt freely in pursuit of those aligned interests. 

Problem: large numbers of Whites today do not perceive that their individual interests align with group – racial – interests.  That perception is incorrect, but how can it be corrected?  Certainly not by the stupidity of Der Movement, Inc.

Of course, enabling constraints became more effective once evolution produced entities that were highly evolvable and capable of pursuing their own interests adaptively. The potential advantages of having evolvable entities managed by enabling rather than prescriptive constraints were demonstrated by the competitive superiority of free market economies over command economies in the 20th century. 

Well, maybe.  But given how the “free market economies” have become subverted by globalist elites and middleman minorities, I’m not sanguine for the long term future of the alleged superiority of the “free market” in an age of increasingly militant populism.

It is not difficult to identify scenarios in which selection would favour entities that develop power over others. For example, their power may enable them to monopolize resources (including access to reproductive opportunities), or to predate others. But exercising power in these ways does not necessarily align their evolutionary/adaptive interests with those they have power over.

Right, but they may not care.  Jews have been successful – at least in the short-term in any given locale, but possibly long-term for their entire evolutionary history being predators on their host societies.

However, interests begin to be aligned to some extent if the powerful entities discover ways in which they can harvest an on-going stream of benefits from those they control. Once this occurs, they may do better if they use their power to help the group survive and thrive, and thereby produce a larger stream of harvestable benefits, not just a once-off dividend.

OK, agreed, but this requires (a) that the managing entities have innate interests aligned with the managed, and (b) the managers are capable of rational long-term thinking and strategizing.

In some circumstances, proto-managers that solve the cooperation problem and harvest an on-going stream of benefits may be able to do better than if they move between groups, exploiting them as they go. 

Bowery’s concept of Jewish virulence.

Where this is the case, selection operating at the level of individual proto-managers will tend to favour those that remain with a group and use their power to increase the stream of benefits that they harvest from it (Stewart, 1995, Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Jewish virulence is decreased when they are forced to stay local and suffer the same fate as the host population.

Salthe (1985) demonstrates that constraints that can control a dynamic of interacting entities may arise in either of two ways: 

1) Upper-level constraints: these arise external to the dynamic of entities. They can influence the dynamic without being influenced in return. This is often because they are larger in scale than the entities they constrain, and are constituted by processes that operate significantly more slowly than the interactions in the dynamic. Examples of abiotic upper-level constraints that act on a population of entities include features of the environment that are relatively unchanging from the perspective of the interacting entities, such as large-scale physical structure in the environment. The external managers referred to in this paper are evolvable systems of upper-level constraints. It is worth emphasizing here that they are often constituted by processes rather than entities.

In human affairs, processes and entities become intertwined.  Can we separate out the human factor?  You have the “process” of “democracy”- and this process becomes subverted by human entities with conflicting interests.

2)  Lower-level constraints: these arise within the entities themselves. These constraints are relatively fixed, internal features of the interacting entities that can influence how entities behave in interactions, but are not influenced in return. In effect, they hardwire entities. Examples of lower level constraints in living entities include genetic elements, and internalized norms, customs and beliefs.

In humans, the genes and the “customs and beliefs” are related via cross-talk.

Importantly, the evolutionary interests of a distributed internal manager tend to be aligned with the interests of the group that it manages. The manager will capture the benefits of any cooperative activities within the group, because it exists in each of the members of the group. Selection will therefore favour any variant internal manager that constrains the members of the group in ways that promote beneficial cooperation. 

Group selection theory.  But this has to be proofed against free riders, particularly against either native or alien elites who have – or believe they have – interests that are in conflict with that of the broader group.  Note that “because it exists in each of the members of the group” directly implies that the managerial processes are inherent in all the members of the group.  That sounds nice in theory, but managerial elites always form in practice. You will need the “upper-level constraints” to control their behavior, and dependable constrains have not yet been devised.

But the potential of cooperation can be realized only to the extent that the cooperation problem is overcome. Unless the cooperation problem is solved, complex cooperative organization will not arise. It will not come into existence while individual entities fail to capture sufficient of the benefits of their cooperation. Selection at the group level, no matter how powerful, cannot call it into existence.

Free riding is the deadly enemy of group selection, ethnoracial nepotism, and inclusive fitness in defense of genetic interests.  Free riding must be fought at all costs.

We have seen that evolvable management, whether external or internal, can overcome the cooperation problem. It can manage a group of entities to ensure that beneficial cooperation can be sustained within the group and can therefore be the target of selection. This massively expands the possibility space that can be explored as the group evolves.

This is straightforward evolutionary biology, but applied to – in the case of humans – political, social, and cultural organization. An objective is to build a managerial structure that is characterized by an inherent trait of evolvability.  Just like devising methods to prevent rent-seeking free riding, devising processes and constraints that ensure that the management can evolve is no easy task (and this ability to evolve will, as the author suggests above, help solve the free riding problem- the cooperation problem).  I suggest that the management will resist such evolvability, or hijack it for selfish interests – to evolve (or devolve) toward parasitism.  Making positive pro-group evolvability “baked into the cake” of managerial entities and processes is a task of fundamental importance. There are no easy answers.  Somehow, there has to be self-perpetuating upper-level and lower-level constraints that exhibit positive feedback and self-reinforcement. It may be prudent to have “separation of powers” with multiple entities and/or processes so that competition between them is channeled in the direction, paradoxically, of increasing cooperation in defense of the broader group’s interests.

Where a powerful manager is able to harvest an on-going stream of benefits from the group it manages, it will be able to capture the benefits of any management that increases the productivity of the group. 

This assumes a congruence between interests of manager and group, and also assumes a long-term strategy and vision. This is because it is very possible for alien parasitical managers to “harvest an in-going stream of benefits” through destructive exploitation of the managed group. One has only to look at the globalist capitalist elites and/or Jewish control of White societies for examples of this.

It will therefore be able to advance its own evolutionary/adaptive interests by promoting cooperation within the managed group. 

Again, only when manager and managed have similar or identical interests, if the manager knows this, and acts long-term.  The managers of the West today, with their own selfish interests, act to advance non-cooperation, atomization, and hyper-individualism among the managed White populations.

If managed groups compete with each other, and if a manager is less successful if it lives independently of its group, the most effective way in which it will be able to advance its interests will be to advance those of the managed group. In these circumstances the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the managed group as a whole (Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Not necessarily.  Parasitical managers can wreck a group and then move elsewhere – e.g., Bowery’s Jewish virulence thesis.

Because the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the group, selection acting on the manager will favour management which aligns the interests of the entities it manages with the interests of the group. As a result, all the members of the group, manager and managed entities alike, will adapt cooperatively to serve the group as a whole. Members of the group will be favoured by selection only insofar as they serve the adaptive interests of the group as a whole. As a consequence, the group will increasingly come to be organized and adapted to function as an entity in its own right. 

So, manager and group really need to be more or less genetically similar so that interests will correctly align. A Jewish-Asian overclass and a White underclass is not going to work out, HBDers.  Then, once biological homogeneity is established, cultural and social alignment must follow – we cannot have a managerial class that is a free riding parasite, even if it is composed of the co-ethnics of those managed.  We need to have social, political, and economic controls on managerial behavior, to suppress free riding and rent seeking behaviors.  Wealth disparity definitely needs to be suppressed soaps to eliminate the possibility of an exploitative plutocracy.

However, while ever cooperative organizations of the largest-scale are smaller than the planet, they will constitute a population of organizations that compete with each other. This will produce the cooperation problem. Organizations that act cooperatively towards others will tend to be out-competed. This dynamic is currently evident at the level of nation states. Global warming and international war are both manifestations of the cooperation problem. The existence of the cooperation problem at this level means that potential benefits can be realized through the emergence of global management (including global governance). Global management has the potential to overcome the cooperation problem at the level of nation states.

Effective global management would not only suppress destructive competition between nations. 

If genuine differences of interests exist, competition is inevitable.  What is “destructive?”  Yes, mutually annihilating war should be avoided, and, yes, I generally support Salter’s “universal nationalism.”  But the recent history of “global management” suggests that the ONLY competition that will be suppressed is that of Whites competing against Coloreds in order to secure legitimate White interests.

Ultimately it would also have the potential to realize the benefits of integrating all lower level entities into the global organization, including by supporting entities that contribute positively to the global organization. A global manager that is sufficiently powerful and evolvable has the potential to control a hierarchy of management that integrates the living and non-living processes of the planet into a cooperative and unified global entity(for more detailed discussion, see Stewart, 2000).

And this global manager is acceptable only insofar as it respect the rights and interests of lower levels of nested interests.  

When we stand back from the evolutionary process on this planet and consider it as a coherent whole, we see that there are two great trends within evolution. One is towards diversification. The other is towards integration and cooperation. As we have seen in some detail, both trends are driven by selection processes that are consistent with mainstream evolutionary theory.

And both are consistent with pan-European racial nationalism that preserves ethnic differences.

As the global entity emerges, it can be expected to increasingly manage the living processes, energy, matter and technology of the entire planet into a coordinated whole. As it develops, it will optimize all the processes on which it depends (including large-scale ecological systems) in order to create the most effective platform for its future evolution. 

“Future evolution: will be compromised by a racial panmixia that frustrates the evolutionary path toward increasing diversification by erasing all the evolved differences of population groups that contribute to human genetic and phenotypic diversity.

Of course, this is not likely to be the end of the evolutionary trajectory. The trajectory is likely to have unfolded elsewhere…

Theories of Aging and a Stupid Female Biologist

Is using “stupid” and “female” in the same sentence redundant?


Re: “Myth” One – that hypothesis may be right or it may be wrong, but her “reasoning” is incomplete. What about natural selection, especially in the group selection context? Offspring may contain less genes of the parents than the parent themselves, but the offspring’s gene combinations may be better suited for being adaptive for the environment. On a single family basis, this may be a “wash” (parental genes may be better adapted), but consider the population as a whole.  Compare two populations: one immortal and the other mortal, each within a fixed territory with fixed carrying capacity. The immortal population – assuming they reproduce – will have parents eternally competing with offspring for limited resources, putting a cap on possible reproduction.  Indeed, this would degenerate into a generational struggle for fixed resources – leading the immortals to forgo reproduction or to not invest much in parenting.  This population would not have the genetic flexibility to be fit in changing environments.  The mortal population has each generation dying off, thus enhancing the fitness value of reproduction and parental investment.  This in turn creates a population in which generations succeed one another, allowing natural selection to work, producing a gene pool more flexible in adapting to changing environments.  Therefore, on a mass group level, a population with programmed mortality – which may actually just be a default program to slow down bodily maintenance after reproducing – will be more fit in adapting to changing environments than an immortal population that does not make room for new generations that have novel combinations of genes through sexual reproduction (independent assortment and crossing over).
By the way, isn’t it interesting these trash of the type like this “biologist” will invoke the importance of genetic similarity when it comes to parent vs. child, but will have a nervous breakdown if anyone applied the same reasoning to co-ethnic vs. alien?

Another Creative Genius Fail

Dumb Cochran.

Before defending Jews (*) as innocent and naïve waifs who foolishly actually believe in the extreme egalitarianism they preach to the Gentile rubes, the “creative genius” unburdens himself thus:

gcochran9 says:
June 2, 2016 at 11:05 am
Considering that I have gone and on and about the lack of any built-in instinct to favor your own race, and explained why no such tendency is likely to evolve, I am hurt. But there is a simple solution to that.


Well, OK, that’s computer work.  What about Greg’s “real-life” examples?  Cherry picked?  Didn’t the Indians (dot, not feather) eventually work together to eject the British, for example?  Groups like Jews and Chinese are known to be high on ethnocentrism. Jews view themselves as akin to a race and there are more Chinese alive than all the Whites combined; Chinese are more or less a race as well.  And, certainly, East Asians living in other people’s nations have developed a very nice racial solidarity.

More to the point, contra Cochran and the rest of the HBD scum, IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER.  As those of us with intellectual honesty (and common sense) have stated over and over again, the pursuit of ethnic genetic interests has nothing to do with the “evolution” of anything, but rather with rational thought mechanisms (that is beside the point that [evolved] ethnocentrism actually does exist, more in some groups than others; however, the fact remains that such innate ethnocentrism is not required for EGI).

But Cochran and the HBDers always either insinuate or openly state that “genetic interests cannot exist because we have not evolved X,Y,Z.”

They are frauds and liars, knocking down straw men.

But, let us turn it around.  Have humans evolved a preference for “high IQ” or any other of the ranked phenotypic traits so beloved of the HBDers?  Let’s look at the verdict of history, let us look at the experiment of real life!

Fact is, Greg, folks prefer dumb athletes, moronic celebrities, alpha male blowhard leaders, dark triad pick up artists, etc. over brainy scientists, academics, inventors, and HBD bloggers. That’s the evolved preference, from human evolution, to prefer the muscular hunter, the successful leader, the charismatic individual, the sexually attractive and successful, and to scorn the spindly brainy nerds unable to kill the mammoth, unable to inspire men into battle, and unable to excite the ardor of the opposite sex.

Folks prefer Babe Ruth over Albert Einstein, Kim Kardashian over Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Muhammed Ali over Bruce Lahn, Donald Trump over nebbish policy wonk Jeb Bush, and dim-witted and violent Negro athletes over balding and unattractive (and artery-clogged) New Mexican HBD bloggers.

That’s the way of the world, that’s our evolved preferences, so give it up Greg!  HBD is useless!  Who cares about IQ?

Oh wait, we will be told, we need to use rational thought mechanisms to decide what preferences are best, are most adaptive, and are better for us and for society, in the modern world.  Very good, very good.  Genetic continuity, including at the ethny level, is better for us in the modern world as well, you mendacious jackasses; in fact, genetic continuity is the very definition of biological adaptive fitness – more so than favoring some racial alien with a “high IQ.”

Once again, we are really getting tired of Cochran’s tiresome shtick as the “misanthropic, foul-mouthed, lovably ill-tempered creative genius.”  You’re boring Greg, a big YAWNfor you, and with increasing tribalism, the days of aracial HBD are numbered.  Unfortunately, the days of White survival are numbered as well, and the longer Whites waste time with the HBD cult, the less of a chance Whites have of out-living it.

Speaking of out-living: the unfortunate reality is that the wrong one died; in a just universe, Henry Harpending would still be alive and Greg Cochran would be the one dead. Well, it’s too late for the former, but we can still hold out hope for the latter.  How’s the ticker doing these days, Greggy?  Wouldn’t want you to get all worked up over at the blog you know.  Sudden heart attacks do happen, especially to those prone to them.  EGI Notes betting pool: who will drop dead first, Tricky Dick Lynn or Ticker Temper Cochran?  Dick is older, but Greg seems rather unhealthy.  Place your bets!

* A Judeophilic HBDer!  Who has ever heard of that?

Human Biology News, 6/3/16

Rapid human evolution and Northeastern European autoimmunity.

Read here, excerpts, emphasis added:

Two studies presented at the Biology of Genomes meeting here last week show how our genomes have changed over centuries or decades, charting how since Roman times the British have evolved to be taller and fairer, and how just in the last generation the effect of a gene that favors cigarette smoking has dwindled in some groups
…With the help of giant genomic data sets, scientists can now track these evolutionary shifts in allele frequencies over short timescales….Pritchard’s team analyzed 3000 genomes collected as part of the UK10K sequencing project in the United Kingdom. For each allele of interest in each genome, Field calculated a “singleton density score” based on the density of nearby single, unique mutations. The more intense the selection on an allele, the faster it spreads, and the less time there is for singletons to accumulate near it. The approach can reveal selection over the past 100 generations, or about 2000 years.
Stanford graduate students Natalie Telis and Evan Boyle and postdoc Ziyue Gao found relatively few singletons near alleles that confer lactose tolerance—a trait that enables adults to digest milk—and that code for particular immune system receptors. Among the British, these alleles have evidently been highly selected and have spread rapidly. The team also found fewer singletons near alleles for blond hair and blue eyes, indicating that these traits, too, have rapidly spread over the past 2000 years, Field reported in his talk and on 7 May in the preprint server bioRxiv.org. One evolutionary driver may have been Britain’s gloomy skies: Genes for fair hair also cause lighter skin color, which allows the body to make more vitamin D in conditions of scarce sunlight. Or sexual selection could have been at work, driven by a preference for blond mates…
…In a sign of the method’s power, Pritchard’s team also detected selection in traits controlled not by a single gene, but by tiny changes in hundreds of genes. Among them are height, head circumference in infants, and hip size in females—crucial for giving birth to those infants. By looking at the density of singletons flanking more than 4 million DNA differences, Pritchard’s team discovered that selection for all three traits occurred across the genome in recent millennia.
Joseph Pickrell, an evolutionary geneticist at the New York Genome Center in New York City, has used a different strategy to put selection under an even keener microscope, detecting signs of evolution on the scale of a human lifetime. He and Przeworski took a close look at the genomes of 60,000 people of European ancestry who had been genotyped by Kaiser Permanente in Northern California, and 150,000 people from a massive U.K. sequencing effort called the UK Biobank…
..In the parents’ generation, for example, the researchers saw a correlation between early death in men and the presence in their children (and therefore presumably in the parents) of a nicotine receptor allele that makes it harder to quit smoking. Many of the men who died young had reached adulthood in the United Kingdom in the 1950s, a time when many British men had a pack-a-day habit. In contrast, the allele’s frequency in women and in people from Northern California did not vary with age, presumably because fewer in these groups smoked heavily and the allele did not affect their survival. As smoking habits have changed, the pressure to weed out the allele has ceased, and its frequency is unchanged in younger men, Pickrell explains. “My guess is we are going to discover a lot of these gene-by-environment effects,” Przeworski says.
Indeed, Pickrell’s team detected other shifts. A set of gene variants associated with late-onset menstruation was more common in longer-lived women, suggesting it might help delay death. Pickrell also reported that the frequency of the ApoE4 allele, which is associated with Alzheimer’s disease, drops in older people because carriers died early. “We can detect selection on the shortest timeframe possible, an individual’s life span,” he says

Differences in gut microbes, particularly early in life, are likely to contribute to a person’s susceptibility to autoimmunity. Vatanen et al. explored this phenomenon by comparing the microbiomes of children from Finland, Estonia, and Russia from birth to 3 years old. Russians have lower incidences of autoimmunity than Finns and Estonians, and their microbiomes early in life differed, too, with Finnish and Estonian children harboring larger amounts of Bacteroides species. The primary source of bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), an immunomodulatory molecule, also differed among the children. Bacteroides-derived LPS, which probably dominates in Finnish and Estonian children, did a poor job of teaching immune cells self-tolerance in cell culture and in mice, suggesting that it may contribute to autoimmune susceptibility in these populations.

Cell 165, 842 (2016).

Personality Variation and Group Selection

Food for thought.

The power of personality, by Elizabeth Pennisi, in Science 06 May 2016: Vol. 352, Issue 6286, pp. 644-647, DOI: 10.1126/science.352.6286.644


Excerpts, emphasis added:

As the existence of animal personalities becomes undeniable, researchers face a puzzle: how disparate personalities can coexist in a single species. Europe’s great tits are helping explain how. At long-term field sites in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, Niels Dingemanse, a behavioral ecologist at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany, and others have manipulated the number of offspring in nests and the density of nest sites. They’ve found that different conditions favor opposite personalities, thereby enabling behavioral variation to persist. 

When bird populations are dense, competition for territories, mates, and food sharpens, and one might expect aggressive individuals to win out. But when Dingemanse’s postdoc, Marion Nicolaus, tracked 541 adults for 4 years, recording which survived and how many young they produced, she found the opposite was true. It seems that when birds have to compete for scarce resources, the aggressive ones often get into fights, which take a physical toll. Aggressive birds also strain to keep all their young fed, further taxing their health. Thus, compared with more docile individuals, these birds are more likely to wear themselves out and fail to survive to the next breeding year. Only when densities are low do type A birds outcompete gentler ones and thrive, Dingemanse says. 

The findings parallel predictions made a decade ago about humans: that “in growing populations, competitive environments should favor shy, non-explorative, non-aggressive individuals,” Nicolaus, Dingemanse, and colleagues write in an upcoming paper in Ecology Letters.

One can correlate that to Frost’s “genetic pacification” theory and hypothesize that in high-density, populated, areas of higher civilization, more passive, gentle, and shy organisms are selected. Thus, the sissified pansy Whites, particularly those of the urbanized “Western” areas of the race – Western Europe and as well as the overseas Anglosphere. The negative effects of Christianity in selecting for passive faggotry would exacerbate this problem. 

By looking for marked fish, they found that shy individuals hadn’t simply moved out of the groups; they had vanished, most likely because they were not aggressive enough to compete for food in the group and had starved, or were too slow in reacting to predators that homed in on the school. On their own, however, the shy fish thrived, because remaining still is an effective antipredator defense. Bold fish, in contrast, became targets when isolated.

The finding suggests that personality types could play a role in evolution by helping divide a species into separate populations. Such segregation can lead to further differentiation and, eventually, to reproductive isolation. “That is often the first step in models of speciation,” Duckworth says.

Again, the same principles can apply to humans. Will more aggressive and ethnocentric Whites become ever more differentiated from sissified cucks, forming a new ethny with radical different behavioral and other phenotypes and the variant genetic architecture to match? Will the pansies be selected out, leaving the more ethnocentric to survive as the more fit? Or are these different types too integrated, with a too shallow behavioral gradient between them, so that both types will become extinct because of the mistakes of the numerous and influential cuck fraction?

Anelosimus studiosus, a small, brownish U.S. spider, lives in groups of from two to two dozen individuals and can build car-sized webs capable of snaring a small bird or mammal. Over the past decade, behavioral ecologist Jonathan Pruitt of UC Santa Barbara has determined that not only do individual spiders have personalities—bold and active or docile and inactive—but also that the mix of the two types gives each colony a distinctive “group personality.” The group personality needs to fit the demands of the local environment if the colony is to survive, he and his colleagues reported in Nature in 2014.


Thus, group selection based on different mixes of personality variants in the population. Does the same hold for humans? Continuing the speculation from above, do the cuck and ethnocentric fractions of the White population form an integrated whole, with the problem being we have too high a cuck fraction? Will a change toward more ethnocentrics (if possible) solve the problem without complete elimination of the cucks, or a “speciation” between the groups?