Category: HBD realities

Nick Dean is Right

An intelligent comment on TOO…will wonders never cease.

Nick Dean

August 5, 2016 – 1:56 pm | Permalink

They are not automatically on our side who just admit we’re right about something. Something could be anything.

Lynn’s brand of HBD is a fraud, as a wise blogger has pointed out. We want to preserve our OWN biodiversity. The Jewish authored HBD ideas that eliminate biodiversity as such from discussion, but prioritize behavioural diversity are a threat, not a friend.
I mean, it’s McInnes, ffs!

Nick Dean – 100% correct.

As stated here many times, HBD is a political movement. Now, I sometimes engage in a bit of hyperbole, and say that HBD “wants to enslave Whites to their Jewish and Asiatic masters.”
The reality is close to that though.
HBD is all about co-opting racial science and genuine race realism in the service of Jewish and East Asian – also also South Asian – interests. HBDers aim at aracial cognitive elitism, with a favored objective of an admixed Jeurasian elite, consisting of higher-IQ Whites, Jews, and Asians. Racial nationalism is opposed and Salterism attacked; anything that elevates race and kinship over IQ is considered anathema.
That isn’t anything any real racial nationalist would, or should, want to have anything to do with.

Advertisements

HBD vs. Reality: The Hard Truth About East Asians

These are the HBD supermen?

Read here.  Emphasis added:

Those are 95% confidence intervals, so there is almost no overlap between the East Asian distribution and the others for Agreeableness. For Conscientiousness, it is not even close — they might as well come from Mars.

The countries in East Asia include Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Just about all countries are represented by college students. Given that college admissions is a proxy for IQ, and given that East Asians have the highest national IQs, the college student respondents there are closer to the average person, whereas in Africa they are totally unrepresentative (many of the African surveys weren’t even given in the local language, suggesting they show what the educated elite is like). In the paper’s Table 5 you can see scores by country rather than region, and all four East Asian countries are extremely low in both traits, so it’s not like one of them is ruining it for the rest.

When I first saw results like these I was a bit puzzled too, but then I reflected on my extensive contact with East Asians over the years, and it didn’t seem so odd. They aren’t violent and don’t get in your face, so we assume they’re agreeable. In reality, they are autistic or misanthropic, they just don’t let it show. But they have trouble making lots of friends in school, and the males either cannot relate to girls or have a bitter hatred of them, so that they remain virgins for life. I can’t think of another group who showed such autism and misanthropy, and the graph above tells me I shouldn’t bother looking.

As for their abysmal levels of conscientiousness, again we look at them and see them getting good grades and decent jobs, which you can’t do without hard work. But that doesn’t mean they have a solid work ethic or have learned the value of hard work. Those are values that you have internalized and that allow you to work independently toward achievement — when tempted to cheat the rules or give up when the going gets tough, you feel compelled to play fair or keep slogging through it.

East Asians have evolved the opposite system — they have outsourced all of that behavioral monitoring to some authority, such as their Tiger Mother parents, a council of elders, a bureaucracy, an emperor, or whatever. When they feel tempted to cheat or give up, they are not very capable of correcting themselves — that authority monitor has to swoop in, shout in their face to play fair or persevere, and they do as they’re told. They can still get things done, but not on their own, only by total deference to an authority with their interests in mind.


Here is an interesting comment, emphasis added:


aphron11/22/11, 9:00 AM
Being married to a woman from Hong Kong, I can tell you first had that this study is true. Outwardly, Chinese women seem very agreeable; behind-closed-doors, they are totally different. Drama to the highest degree; total lack of trying to expand their horizons; an outstanding lack of intellectual curiosity; rigid style of thinking; controlling, etc. They make great worker drones, however.
 
The whole thing of being overtaken by China is a paper tiger. Yes, they are smart. When you get to really know them, they have the quality of biting on tinfoil.


Those are the facts, yet HBD tells us that East Asians are high-IQ demigods, to whom Whites must grovel (in “measured” fashion, of course!). The bitter truth: White support for HBD comes from pathetic self-described “awkward squad” nerds, whose life choice came down to marrying their hand or marrying a “stern” Chinatrix. Well, that is their problem, why should we let them define a political movement from HBD that tells creative Whites that they must be enslaved by Oriental robots?

Ethnocentric Dominance and the Failure of Free-Riding

Anti-Salterians wrong again.

Yet another block in the crumbling edifice of anti-Salterism has been overturned, see this article, which is discussed by Kevin MacDonald here. This paper is particularly important to address one oft-cited anti-Salterian stupidity – that ethnocentric behavior is not “evolutionarily stable” because it gets hijacked by “free-riders.”  Let’s look at what the data say about that.

The abstract:

Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

I’ll like to comment on relevant excerpts from the abstract as well as the paper.

 …ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. 


Now, as I’ve stated many times, the utility of EGI does NOT depend on the evolution of any behavior, including ethnocentrism. It simply requires that ethnocentrism, which can be acted upon by rational thought mechanisms, be adaptive, which it is (as emphasized by this work).  That said, it is interesting to note that ethnocentrism, being evolutionarily stable once enacted, may in fact be an evolved behavior (likely to varying extents in different population groups).

… ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies…

That should come to no surprise to any honest person with a triple-digit IQ.

Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes.

Free-riding in its typical form (selfish) and its most virulent form (traitorous) is an evolutionary failure.  Read it and weep, HBDers.

Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.


This applies not only to White leftists and globalist humanitarians, but to cuckservatives and, yes indeed, to White HBDers, who are exploited by Asiatics (including Jews) to betray the European race and Western civilization and sacrifice their racial-cultural patrimony on the Altar of Asia. There is good reason why some of us were calling White GNXPers “the extended phenotypes of Asiatics” a decade ago.  This paper explains it well.


The fact that traitorous and selfish genotypes perform just as badly against humanitarians as they do against ethnocentrics, and the lack of any mediation effect of free-riding contradict the alternative mediation hypothesis that only ethnocentrics out-compete selfish free-riders. Although ethnocentrics can exploit selfish agents in neighboring clusters, the self-limiting properties of defection against the free-riders’ own gene pool tend to diminish this advantage. Under many conditions, there are not enough free-riders to allow this potential ethnocentric advantage to be widely used.

Take home point: free-riding strategies are the worst possible, so bad that they perform badly even compared to humanitarians!  The idea that ethnic nepotism is “not stable” because of free-riding is not supported by the data.  Quite the opposite: it are the free-riders and their genes that will be weeded out; they can’t even prosper against humanitarian milksops. Free-riders will be so few in number that they won’t even be efficiently exploited by non-ethnic ethnocentrists. Free-riding is a genetic dead-end.

Notice that the dominance of ethnocentrism over humanitarianism, and the marginalization of selfish and traitorous strategies, can be explained purely via individual selection, without recourse to group-selection mechanisms.

This is an important point, because the anti-Salterian HBDers would have attempted to discredit these data by suggesting they are wholly dependent on group selection and, thus, “unreliable.” No, sorry, individual selection is sufficient to explain the dominance of ethnocentrism and the pathetic failure of free-riding.

Unlike selfish free-riders, traitorous agents have the additional problem of being exploited by the very out-groups they cooperate with. This explains why traitorous genotypes typically do even worse than selfish genotypes, despite the traitors’ greater capacity for cooperation…strategies that fail to cooperate with their own kind (selfish and traitorous) never gained much of a foothold.

Treason never prospers. White leftists, White cuckservatives, White “race-realist” HBDers are all headed for the genetic rubbish heap.  Unfortunately, due to their social and political power, they will drag ethnocentric Whites along with them, unless we leverage our ethnocentrism against the System and save ourselves.

Ultimate take-home message: anti-Salterians are liars and ignorant frauds. HBD – hostile to (White) ethnocentrism – is an anti-scientific fraud. Concern trolling about free-riding is politically/ethnically-motivated mendacity. Salter is proven correct once again.

HBD Realities

The facts of the case.
As recent posts here make clear, I like to use “over-the-top” rhetoric and personal invective when discussing HBD. That assists in drawing attention to the problem and alerting others to the danger. I suspect that Trump uses “bombast” in his campaign for similar reasons. Heated rhetoric aside, there are important points to make about HBD and the obvious syndicate-clique cooperation of inter-connected HBD bloggers, authors, etc. who assist each other in promoting their worldview.
HBD is a political movement.  It is openly hostile to: (White) racial nationalism, (White) racial loyalty, adherence to a (Western) civilizational core, the importance of kinship and genetic interests, European-derived peoples working together and creating a sense of pan-European Identity, the work of Salter (never mind Yockey) and the whole EGI concept. Instead, HBD revolves around a (ultimately aracial) constellation of human traits and a hierarchical ranking of humans by these traits that inevitably puts Jews and East Asians on top.  HBD is subversive of the kind of racial identity and pursuit of racial interests required for White preservationism and ascendancy.  It instead favors the long-term interests of Jews and Asians, and of Whites who have “thrown their lot in” with Jews and Asians. HBD is also a useful tool for people of all backgrounds who simply hate Whites and would like to see Whites fragmented, defeated, and diminished.
So, to those who ask: “Come on, do you really believe HBDers want to enslave Whites to Jews and Asians?” – my reply is, well, many of them may not have that conscious intention, but it doesn’t matter: the long-term inevitable consequence of a HBD culture is the rise of a Jeurasian elite with a White underclass serving as “cannon fodder” and proletarian labor beneath them. Not all HBDers are seething with anti-White hatred (but I can think of some who are); nevertheless, it is clear they put loyalty to a predominantly Jewish/Asian “cognitive elite” above all else; HBDers who are racially White are therefore clearly race traitors. They may deceive themselves (and others!) that they are merely “politically incorrect truth tellers” but, in the last analysis, they are just another cog in the anti-White System machine.  
In the last analysis, all comes down to race and civilization, not IQ or behavior.