Category: James Bowery

EU Travel Advice and Other News

Advice and news.

This applies to Der Movement more than it does to conservatives.

But we should all support the Yang Gang, right? Gee, the Quota Queens have been really quiet about Yang recently.  Did they realize that they were making fools of themselves?

One possible idea for some Americans to get around travel bans to Europe (I do not have any suggestions for the reverse) is to investigate the possibility of obtaining dual citizenship in an EU nation. There are several mechanisms by which dual citizenship can be obtained and I will assume that the EU cannot ban their own citizens from traveling there.

There are of course certain potential problems/issues with this plan:

1. This option would most likely be available for only a very small fraction of people.

2. This would be something that would be most optimal as a preemptive mechanism, for people who have not yet become overt public activists. Of course, overt public activists can, and should, attempt this, if relevant to their individual cases, but I assume that the EU nations would simply refuse to issue dual citizenship to known “haters.”

3. It is also possible that an EU nation would strip dual citizenship from someone if and when they are identified as a “hater.”  I am not sure what the legal status of such stripping would be, but we know that the System does – or tries to do – anything it wants.

4. You would need to understand all the legal and political implications of dual citizenship.

Well, regardless of the details and the limited nature of this possibility, it is something to at least consider if circumstances allow.

Strom being an ignorant, anti-scientific jackass.

Autism rates are far lower in populations that don’t inject their children with Big Pharma products…

There is no evidence whatsoever linking vaccination (to which Strom undoubtedly refers) to autism. In the midst of a resurgence of measles, to imply otherwise is the height of irresponsibility.  If you are interested in correlations between autism and other factors, why don’t you take a look at the posts about autism at this blog – or look at Bowery’s work on the subject – and you’ll see alternative hypotheses that are far more likely to be correct than the “big scary needles causing problems” hysteria.  In my opinion, it’s more likely that there is a causative relationship (and not just a correlation) between diversity and autism than there is between vaccination and autism. By the way, concerning “Big Pharma products” you may wish to express concern about maintenance medication – where the big money is really made (*) – pushing pills for (in my opinion) imaginary diseases (attention deficit disorder) or for diseases caused by lifestyle choices (statins, metformin, blood pressure medication being used because the average American has the BMI of a black hole singularity).  Never mind putting every other person on “anti-depressants.”  But, alas, pills are not “scary needles” so no need to worry, eh?

*As well as cancer therapeutics that are exorbitantly expensive and prolong lifespan by, at most, months.

Advertisements

Summarizing Some Sallis Theories

Some Sallis theories.

The Sallis solution to the Fermi Paradox:

…racial diversity is the rule among sentient species; thus, highly divergent human racial types find their counterparts in significant racial variability among the alien peoples inhabiting worlds unknown. I further propose a Gresham’s law of universal racial diversity: the more intelligent and productive races of any sentient species will tend to be demographically outcompeted by the more stupid and useless races; the latter, despite their deficiencies for proximate values, are inevitably more fit with respect to the ultimate criterion of survival.  The threshold of technological competence for a detectable alien civilization would no longer obtain as the race or races capable of maintaining that civilization are replaced by those incapable.  Therefore, no such civilizations are detected.

The Sallis theory of autism.  Thus, the race recognition processing software of the amygdala (also involved in threat recognition) of Whites, particularly White children, is capable of easily distinguishing highly distinct racial types – Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, (pure) Amerindians, and East Asians.  But the post-1965 immigration influx into America (and similar immigration influxes into Europe) has brought into White societies previously rare, more racially intermediate types – South Asians, heavily admixed Latin Americans, Middle/Near Easterners and North Africans. This phenotypically confusing racial diversity “scrambles” the amygdala of susceptible White children, increasing risk for autism.  Hence, the link between diversity and autism and, hence, an explanation for some of the population-autism correlations discovered by James Bowery some years ago.

As regards politics – my “Sallis strategy.”

Disease of the Heart

In all cases, emphasis added. 

A good quote from Bowery from TOO:

Hate is the reaction by the powerless to insular power. Accusing someone of “hate” is to accuse them of being powerless and, yourself, of identifying with insular power.

No surprise here: Derbyshire supports Antifa Jeff Sessions, and, of course, uses an anecdote about China to do it.  Hey, Derb, the whole world does not revolve around China, only your bedroom does.

As far as his argument goes, there are others who can do more in the fight against illegal immigration; it’s not hard to surpass someone standing around helplessly, looking dumbfounded.  And this other person may also not support leftist domestic terrorists by filing hate crime charges against someone who apparently was trying to flee in their car from a rifle-toting terrorist.  

But, Antifa Jeff is “America’s Senator,” “one of the boys,” so Derb will be on his side, let there be no doubt about it.

Then again, Antifa is a disease of the skin, but HBD race realist Yellow Supremacy is a disease of the heart, eh?

Durocher skating on thin “movement” ice here:

The Europeans north of Greece were generally considered barbaric and spirited, while Asians inhabiting Persia were considered effeminate and submissive. Barbarians were often thought incapable of civic self-government. The Phoenicians were sometimes perceived as having certain Semitic stereotypes (mercantile, dishonest, greedy, mercenary) but were also sometimes perceived as a fellow advanced people, comparably organized and capable in terms of trade, warfare, and civic self-government.

Hey!  What’s this?  “The Europeans north of Greece were generally considered barbaric and spirited…”  Why would the Ancient Greeks make any distinctions between themselves and the “Europeans north of Greece” when they were – quite obviously! – identical, genetically and phenotypically exactly one and the same?  

Durocher better watch out here; he’s going to get his official Der Movement, Inc. membership card revoked or something; this sort of blasphemy is not acceptable.

A quote from a Counter-Currents commentator:

I’ve taken the advice a previous commenter left, and tried to pick up a few hours of overtime each week, the money from which I use to support sites such as this and Arktos.

Arktos?  Say it ain’t so, Joe!  You might get “fired” as a Counter-Currents donor if you keep up such shenanigans!  Seriously though, here’s a perfect example of a problem discussed here.  Here we have a well-meaning fellow, working overtime, so he can give donations to folks who are no doubt living better than he is, and who are doing exactly what with the money?  Well, I guess whatever it is, it’s still better than giving money so that Brimelow and Derbyshire can sit on lawn chairs in the leafy suburbs of CT, smugly smiling for the camera.  Choices!  Choices!  Der Movement, Inc. provides endless choices for your hard-earned money, dear readers.  Keep on giving!  Make sacrifices!  You’ll be “living in the Golden Age” if you give up some of your golden shekels, don’t you know.

Read here.

White nationalism “went from being conversation you could hold in a bathroom, to the front parlor.”

It’s back in the bathroom now, I guess.  And why was it in the bathroom to begin with?  With all the fine work of Pierce, up there on the mountaintop of West Virginia, in the middle of the hub-bub of political life?

Sallis right again.  How many times have I, over the past few years here, stated that Spencer should have gone into electoral politics (he had all the qualities of a successful politician…read into that what you will), and that his indulgence as a two-bit junior fuhrer was a terrible mistake.  Well…

In 2010, Regnery asked Spencer to find candidates to lead the organization. Spencer suggested himself. 

At the time, leading such an explicitly racist organization carried great risks for someone with political ambitions. “I felt he was too accomplished and had too bright a career in the offing to accept a position that would forever brand him with the mark of Cain,” Regnery said. “I remember spending time gently trying to talk him out of the idea.” But he took the job, and in a speech last year Regnery said that putting Spencer in charge of NPI “secured my place in history.”

Well, now NPI is falling apart, so it’s not a good history.  Regnery’s first instinct was absolutely correct: someone else should have been put in place at NPI, and Spencer should have just been the political “face” of Der Movement.  After all, imagine if Spencer never acquired “the mark of Cain” – he would have been well-positioned to have run as a right-wing populist candidate this year, riding on Trump’s coattails.  Now, it’s all gone.  

Der Movement is a disease of the heart – it is a rapidly progressing cardiovascular disease killing racial activism.

Holding Whites Accountable

It didn’t “just happen.”

But here’s the problem with this complaint – which by the way I can 100% identify with, having lived through similar times myself (in that case, mostly with various types of Negroes and of mulatto Hispanics, rather than Mexicans) – how did this state of affairs come to pass?

That is not a rhetorical question, nor am I being facetious.  Let’s answer the question.  Whites have been – and continue to be – a majority of the American population, a majority of voters, and a majority of the population of places like Iowa.  Whites used to be a clear majority of the population of California.  Whites vote.  What happened?  Who elected the politicians who enabled this disaster to occur?  Who looked the other way for decades?  Who ignored the problem as long as it was in someone else’s backyard and not their own?  Who ignored the plight of urban Whites (particularly if those were “White ethnics”)?

All of this didn’t “just happen.”

Please study this video, and pay particular attention to the 40 seconds from 3:20-4:00 – McCain’s infamous “build the danged fence” campaign video, made when Amnesty John was facing some heat from his right on immigration.  I remember noting that video at the time, and thinking to myself: “the GOP voters of Arizona can’t be that stupid, can they?  I mean, it’s obvious – obvious – that McCain’s lying to them, and he’ll go back to shilling for amnesty, and against any enforcement, once elected.  I mean, he’s being playing that game for a long time; surely, they are wise to him now, right?  Indeed, the GOP as a whole does this, feinting right for elections, and then governing like liberal Democrats.”

Well, no, the GOP voters of Arizona were fooled once again, and even though they howled their betrayal, they still continued to support the evil scum McCain, and are crying bitter tears over his death.  

This has been the Republican playbook for decades.  They dog whistle implicitly on race – VERY implicitly – to gather White support for Necon agendas and for the same big business interests bringing in the hordes to begin with.  And the rubes fall for the scam time and again.

Here’s where I part company with Bowery and all the rest: Whites need to be held accountable for their stupidity, fecklessness, and painful naiveté.  

The key part of that man’s lament, from the short essay Bowery presented:

Am I racist? Jesus, am I becoming one of those guys. I sure sound like one of those guys.

“Those guys.”  You see, the only people who have a solution to the problem (let’s ignore for the moment that Der Movement, Inc. is a fraud; I’m referring to racial nationalism in general) are considered “those people,” as alien as the Latinos, freaks to be dismissed and despised.  This fellow sounds like he considers being one of “those people” just as bad – nay, even worse! – than what has happened to his town, his community, his nation.  “Jesus,” indeed.

One wonders who this fellow voted for.  McCain?  Romney?  Maybe even Obama?

Accountability?

Every time I read, or hear, a lament like this, every time some anti-White outrage occurs, every time the borders are opened even more, what I do – and what I suggest we all do – is trace things back to the beginning.  Why are these things allowed to happen?  Answer: Those in a position of leadership allow it to happen; in many cases, they support and promote it.  

Well, then, how and why are they in this position of power to begin with?  If elected, it is because an electorate that is majority White elected them (and the same applies overseas – who elected Merkel?).  If they are in a position  of power economically, it is because a consumer base that is majority White continues to purchase their goods and services; Whites being incapable of organizing boycotts on the basis of racial interests like any other group.  If the power derives from fame and celebrity, it is because a majority White population provides that fame and celebrity.

Oh, you will cry – “It’s the Jews!  The Jews!”   Trace that back.  Who let the Jews into America?  Who let the Jews rise to prominence and seize the media?  Who kowtows to Jewish interests?  Who serves as the Shabbos goy traitor class?  We’re back again to the White elites – the politicians elected by Whites, the moguls funded by White consumers, the celebrities whose fame derives from White fan worship.

The same applies if you want to scream about “moneyed interests” or “the managerial class” or “The Federal Reserve” or “the SJWs” or whatever pet peeve you have: these things didn’t “just happen.”  To paraphrase Pareto: if a wolf is eating you, it is because you chose to be a sheep.  If Whites choose to be a race of sheep, they should not be surprised about all the wolves gorging themselves on the white-flocked sheeple.

Trace things back to first principles.  Things do not “just happen.”  And screaming about “the Jews” is a crutch to avoid dealing with the need to hold Whites accountable for their own lowly position.

And I have to laugh at the Roissyite HBD Nordicist gamesters getting all hot and bothered about a single German (of course) rally – yes sir, “the Saxon begins to hate!”  How about “the Saxon” voting for even the milquetoast moderate right-wing Alternative For Germany (never mind the NPD), instead of putting Merkel in power over and over again?  Another example of Der Movement’s victory psychosis, and their Germans on White Horse Syndrome.

I suppose it’s another example of White fecklessness that they are “represented” by a “racial movement” composed of retards and fetishistic morons.

Bowery is Right about This

Responding to Griffin.

Read this.

My view is somewhere in between that of Griffin and his critics.  I agree with the critics that Griffin underestimates the immense pressures and restraints imposed on White men, particularly young White men trying to make their way in a vehemently anti-White, Colored Privilege America.  On the other hand, Griffin is correct that there are options other than a quixotic and suicidal gesture such as that of “Sky King.”

James Bowery has, I believe, a good perspective on this.  After citing this publication, Bowery states:

Young white males are well advised NOT to “suck it up and buckle down to serve the economy and social stability,” as Dr. Griffin does, but rather to organize in such a way as to destabilize society and do so identifiably as young white males.

This is consistent with my call for approaches that enhance societal and demographic balkanization.  Remember Salter’s dictum: the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does – since the latter efficiently and quietly, without much fuss, manages the race replacement of native White populations.  If multiculturalism does not work, it may produce enough societal pain to induce cowardly and feckless Whites to begin to understand the problem and do something about it.  

So, young White males should destabilize society and they must do so in a racially identifiable manner so as to heighten the contradictions, provoke responses, and balkanize society along racial lines.

To paraphrase that Batman movie – “some people just want to watch the world burn.”  

Indeed.

None Dare Call It Hypocrisy

Well, actually, I dare.

I see it as highly hypocritical that the same “movement” “leaders” – all the quota queens – endlessly complain about being “deplatformed” (and use that as part of their equally endless tin cup panhandling), while at the same time these “leaders” behave the same way with respect to racialist dissidents who honestly critique the “movement” and its “leaders” – “ban” them, essentially “deplatform” them from the central media centers of (what passes for) “movement” discourse.

It is important to clear up some matters lest I be accused of hypocrisy or inconsistency.  First, I do agree with the argument – made, for example, by Bowery at Majority Rights when he and I were both participating at that blog – that freedom of association trumps freedom of speech.  I further made the argument at my own blogs that freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to host any specific type of speech at their own forum; again, freedom of association is above freedom of speech, as long as that speech has somewhere else to go. So, yes, I agree that a blog owner can “ban” anyone they want from their site, and that “banned” person can go and set up their own blog and do their own thing elsewhere on the Internet.  After all, that’s ultimately why this blog exists (and, if I remember correctly, for example, Majority Rights was established after its founders were essentially declared persona non grata at Gene Expression).  I have also argued, in like sense, that a blog can be viewed as a form of political warfare, and so why should political soldiers benefit their enemies by facilitating those enemies’ dissemination of their ideas?  There is no obligation to host your enemy.  Very good, but is a fellow racial activist really an “enemy” because they criticize some of your ideas and actions?  Because they state that you should be held accountable for mistakes (according to your own declared standards of behavior)?  Are fellow activists the functional equivalent of SJW leftists?

It is also true that there is a difference between being banned from a blog (or a set of blogs) and having a major (albeit privately owned) company, which is functionally equivalent to a public utility, banning its use by an entire class of people based on, for example, their political views.  However, the “why should you assist the enemy?” argument cuts both ways here.  The owners of Amazon, Twitter, PayPal, etc. can argue – why should they be obligated to support their enemies?  Oh, you say that they are so successful that they are equivalent to public utilities and so they must be obligated to serve everyone.  Very well.  Imagine the same principle is turned inward to the “movement” – some “movement” blogs, sites, groups, and organizations are so successful (within the “movement” itself) that they are equivalent to “movement” “public utilities” and so they must be obligated to serve all racial activists, even those they disagree with.  I’m sure that violation of freedom of association would be rejected, even though in principle the argument is the same (adjusted for scale between society-at-large and the “movement”).

I’m not making a legalistic argument in this post; instead, I’m making a moral one, based on principles, and based on character and integrity (or the lack therefore in Der Movement).  The basic truth is that these “leaders” are endlessly whining about being deplatformed by private companies, and they behave the same way to racial activist dissidents they do not like.  The scale is different, but the basic principle is the same, and most of the arguments as to why private companies should be obligated to interface with, and serve, the “movement” as a whole can be made to argue that the “movement” as a whole needs to interface with the dissidents within its ranks.

Basically, I see the behavior of the “leaders” as being one of cowardice – fear of engaging with dissident critics and those critics’ ideas – as well as the prima donna sense of entitlement that derives from being products of the “movement’s” affirmative action program – how dare anyone criticize them!  Why should they stoop to answering critics?.  Low character hypocrites: behold the Type I Quota Queen “Leadership” of Der Movement: fearfully hiding from those who would critique their flawed ideas and those who would hold them accountable for their failures.

Note: Someone may point out that my own blogs have traditionally never had comments sections.  That is true.  First, I’m not a fan of such sections, the signal-to-noise ratio is poor; most “movement” comments threads of full of asinine Type I activists, trolls, fetishists, defectives, and “antis.”  Second, and even more importantly, unlike our “fearless leaders,” I am not a full time professional activist (living off of supporters’ donations). I’m merely a part-time amateur; I simply do not have the time to deal with comments; to my mind, it is more important, and more prudent, to invest my limited time in producing new content.  However, our heroic leaders are indeed full time activists with free time aplenty, they are people who believe that comments sections have value, so there is obviously a difference between my blog and theirs in that regard.

Social Epistasis

This ranks among the most important sets of work I have reviewed.

I do not want to be churlish, so I’ll admit that I was alerted about this paper through the website Chateau Heartiste (ironically, since the nihilistic hedonism of “game” contributes to the problems outlined in the paper).

The paper is more of a HBD-style analysis, not my usual “cup of tea,” but is nevertheless useful since it an effective counter to atomized individualism of all types – the rightist libertarian form, the anti-Salterian HBD form that asserts that (for Whites) only individual and family interests matter and that the ethny is irrelevant, the leftist form in which extreme individualism is promoted with respect to ethny but hypocritically collectivism is promoted with respect to humanity as a whole.

I have read the paper, which can be seen to have a rightist perspective, and even cites the work of Kevin MacDonald.  Indeed, with sections on “pathological altruism” and “free-riding” it almost reads as something one would find at The Occidental Observer or EGI Notes, or perhaps something written by Frank Salter.  What are its major points?

Mutational load increases from generation to generation as a consequence of normal biological processes, and this is exacerbated by the tendency, in Western populations, for people to become parents later in age, since gamete mutations increase with age. Note that when these mutations exert a phenotypic effect, in the great majority of cases the effects will be negative. In order to avoid “mutational meltdown” as a consequence of accumulation of deleterious alleles, purifying selection is required, and in theory such selection would require that the vast majority of the population not reproduce (with the more genetically healthy remainder making up the population shortfall via increased reproduction).  The authors suggest that a numerically more realistic solution would be a form of “cryptic” purifying selection, in which those who have a greater mutational load are less likely to reproduce and/or have less children if they do reproduce, than those with fewer mutations (not necessarily and “all or nothing” situation but more of relatively suppressed fitness consequent to a heavier mutational load).  The authors cite evidence that increasing parental age – resulting in increased numbers of mutations carried by sperm – result in offspring more likely to have behavioral defects or decreased physical attractiveness.  Given that the authors suggest that sexual selection in mate choice can be a honest assessment of genetic quality (one can quibble with this in modern society in which women sometimes prefer low-IQ colored “alpha male” brutes, but this quibble may actually be consistent with the authors’ belief that selection has been compromised in modern society), then over time higher mutational load would be selected out.  

Given that many genes – including mutated alleles – have pleiotropic effects (influencing multiple traits at the same time), this could be quite efficient, since selection exerted on any of the various traits would affect selection on those alleles causing a wide variety of negative phenotypes and selecting against all those phenotypes simultaneously. Conversely, I might add, this also helps by having the mutated alleles being targeted by selection at any one of several traits, increasing the probability of the allele in question being selected against, targeted as it is by convergent selective pressures generated by the interaction of the phenotypes with the environment.

In this scenario, only a minority of the population would have to go childless for this to work, and in the past, Western populations demonstrated a reproductive pattern (who mates, what children survive to adulthood), consistent with selection against excessive mutational load. However, the authors assert that this process has become short-circuited in modern society, in which most people mate and reproduce, and most children survive to adulthood, and that environmental, social, and cultural factors can alleviate some of the negative effects of mutational load (e.g., medications, medical care, cosmetics, etc.).  Thus, modern society does not effectively select against mutational load, but merely reduces the cost of that load on the affected individual.  Thus, a high-loaded person is not selected out of the population but is instead “propped up” by society’s infrastructure, reproducing, and adding to the load in the next generation.  This is not unexpected.  After all, the authors cite work with fruit flies that show that those strains with higher mutational load can suffer up to a 10-fold decrease in fitness in competitive environments compared to a lack of competition that selects against mutation. In modern society, in which “all life is valued,” which do you think holds?

On a purely anecdotal personal note, I’m amazed how frequently I see individuals derived from “Western populations” – usually younger people – who seem to reflect a high mutational load. I often observe individuals of ostensibly normal or even high intelligence who have the physical appearance of Down syndrome and who at the same time display semi-autistic behavior.  Also, the whole SJW “snowflake” phenomenon, particularly on college campuses, perhaps reflects behavioral aberrations derived from mutational loading. Extrapolating this genetic deterioration into the future leads one straight to idiocracy.  Even more extreme, a complete biological collapse, leading to human extinction, is possible.

What costs to society accrue based on this?  The authors cite suggestive evidence for declining quality of Western populations, including increases in the prevalence of autism and ADHD, increased skeletal asymmetry and left-handedness, the rise of obesity, and various medical abnormalities. Intriguingly, they also suggest that the “demographic transition” – the below replacement fertility of Western populations – may be not only due to cultural factors and “rational choice” mechanisms, but also due to changes in the “fitness characteristics of the group-level extended phenotype of modern populations” (emphasis in the original, and a phrase not out of place at this blog or the work of similarly-minded individuals) so that deleterious mutations accumulating from “ecological mildness” cause  =(directly or indirectly) “fertility transition” resulting in a “very rapid fitness collapse in Western populations…”  To put in bluntly: we created an advanced “ecologically mild” society that relaxed selection against the botched and unfit, resulting an aberrant extended phenotype at the group level, causing group extinction and race replacement.  

Since the authors bring up group selection, they then briefly discuss the “selfish gene” (Dawkins-HBDer view) vs. the “group selection” view, citing the issue of “free-riding” oft-discussed at this blog and also in the work of Frank Salter and Kevin MacDonald.  The authors reasonably support the idea of “multilevel selection” – in that in some cases selection works at the individual level (e.g.., in peacetime) and at other times at the group level (e.g., in warfare).  In today’s globalist world with a Clash of Civilizations, mass migration, and race replacement, guess which level is more relevant? Even though group selection is not required for EGI, the fact is that the world environment is such that group selection must be the predominant fitness mechanism extant today.

Next, the topic of social epistasis.  Epistasis typically describes gene-gene interactions within a single organism, while social epistasis describes such interactions taking place between organisms.  After a discussion of eusocial insects, the authors speculate on the human situation, and the possibility that human societies require particular forms of social epistasis for optimal function and maximal fitness. In healthy societies, high-status individuals generate and promote free-rider controls – e.g., religions and/or ideological systems that promote behavior that benefits the group and repress behaviors that selfishly benefit only the individual.  Behavior so cited include “ethnocentrism, martyrdom, and displays of commitment.”  Also important is so-called “effortful control” – the ability of humans to control their behavior and impulses so as to act to benefit the group.  On the other hand, mutations can break down the affinity of high-status individuals for the group – which I note we see today in the West with the complete treason of the elites against their own ethnies – thus “causing dysregulation of the group’s reproductive ecology” – hence the demographic trends we see today.  And although I myself am no fan of religion, I note the authors cite religion as a positive controlling force and postmodernist “individualistic, secular, and antihierarchical values” as negative. 

Of great importance is the emphasis the authors place on control of free-riding as a component of a healthy society exhibiting optimal function and fitness, and how breakdown of free-riding control, perhaps through mutational loading, reduces societal function and fitness.  Consider the importance given control of free–riding in the work of Frank Salter and Kevin MacDonald, and my support of their work, and draw your own conclusions as to the great validity of that work compared to its deluded or mendacious critics.

I also note that the authors mention “spiteful mutations” – having effects that harm others while not benefiting the individual possessing the mutation or even also harming that individual – as those which may act to remove constraints on free-riding.  Indeed, it is possible that the person with the free riding-enabling mutation is not the actual free-rider, and in fact the mutant individual may be harmed by the free-rider.  One can speculate here about White mutants that harbor spiteful mutations that enable Jewish/Colored/atomized White free-riding, thus harming all Whites, including the mutant Whites themselves.

Next on the agenda is a topic near and dear to our hearts: pathological altruism.  The authors state that “cultural disturbance” (i.e., the modern “West”) can promote “maladaptive personality traits” leading to pathological altruism and/or the removal of constraints on free-riding. Cited as examples are self-righteousness (cue the SJWs) and narcissism (indeed, the Dark Triad is invoked here as a problem, ironic given the forum from which this paper came to my attention).  One behavior in particular cited by the authors is the “clever silly phenomenon” of “virtue signaling” utilizing “counterfactual beliefs,” including the moralistic fallacy of “the conflation of moral equality among individuals, sexes, and populations with biological equality” (and the related moralistic fallacy of race denial).  

Indeed, the authors speculate that there may be an increased number of individuals in modern Western societies prone to spreading such silliness, and that “Machiavellians and narcissists” seem uniquely advantaged to achieve elite status in today’s world, thus further promoting memetic flotsam and jetsam. Thus we observe “elite egoists” encouraging “selfish behaviors” previously restrained by belief systems (e.g., religion).  Indeed, a feedback loop may exist where mutation directly or indirectly increases egoism; the egoists rise to influence, and then use their power to alter the sociocultural environment to “foster norms that are friendly to egoism and thus magnify opportunities for other egoists to obtain cultural capital.”  Sound familiar? (And we can cite an ethnic dimension to his – cue the work of Kevin MacDonald).  Included in this cultural capital are anti-natalistic memes (also found in the “movement”) and the related “morality of self-fulfillment.”  We can of course more directly cite the pathological altruism of cucked xenophilia, leading to mass migration and race replacement  Related to all of this is a loss of “effortful control,” so people lack the ability to retrain their destructive behavior.  

The authors include a figure at this point; the figure legend includes:

Flowchart illustrating the pathways through which accumulating deleterious mutations can suppress fitness. Mutations can reduce (as the minus sign indicates) intrinsic/genetic fitness directly, in addition to promoting (as the plus sign indicates) behavioral change. Behavioral change can further directly suppress individual-level fitness while simultaneously promoting the degradation of group-level regulatory processes (e.g., free-rider controls), via social epistasis. This degradation feeds back into fitness, both directly (via its direct effects on group-level fitness) and indirectly (via facilitation of further behavioral change) imposing additional costs on fitness. Behavioral change, resulting either directly from mutations or the breakdown of group-level regulatory processes, can also rebound on intrinsic fitness via its promotion of mutation accumulation.

This is followed by mathematical modeling demonstrating how the sizes of different populations can be altered as a result of carrying deleterious mutations.

Finally, in the Discussion, the authors quote another researcher who stated that “the brain is a particularly large mutational target” so that behavioral changes due to mutation are to be expected. Social epistasis is a vulnerable target for spiteful mutations, leading to significant depression of society fitness, as demonstrated by Western demographic decline, particularly among high-status, high-IQ individuals (remember that spiteful mutations can harm the fitness of those that carry them and not only harm others).  Modern society and its advancements have reduced selective pressure, allowing the spread of deleterious mutations and the consequent release of constraints on free-riding, reducing the optimal function of the group and greatly reducing group fitness.

The authors relate their thesis to Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiments, and the parallels between the collapse of the mouse utopia and the collapse of the modern “West” are striking.  For example, the “decline phase” of the mouse utopia was characterized by the emergence of animals called the “beautiful ones” that exhibited “apparently bizarre behaviors” including “obsessive grooming, hyposociality, and asexuality.”  Let’s consider the human equivalents: metrosexuals, atomized Whites and the even more extreme anti-social autistic spectrum, and the rise of transgenderism and celibate beta males.  

The authors quote Calhoun concerning the spiritual and then physical death of the mouse utopia:

Autistic-like creatures, capable only of the most simple behaviors compatible with physiological survival, emerge out of this process. Their spirit has died (“the first death”). They are no longer capable of executing the more complex behaviors compatible with species survival. The species in such settings dies.

Behold the Death of the West.

The authors conclude that the issue of mutational load is a serious problem worthy of further study.  Indeed, it is, but is not the only problem that one can derive from a close reading of the paper.  

Related to the above is this paper, summarized here (*), the author summary of which is as follows (emphasis added, and you can read both papers yourself, as I am going to only very briefly discuss there here):

Daily interactions between individuals can influence their health both in positive and negative ways. Often the mechanisms mediating social effects are unknown, so current approaches to study social effects are limited to a few phenotypes for which the mediating mechanisms are known a priori or suspected. Here we propose to leverage the fact that most traits are genetically controlled to investigate the influence of the social environment. To do so, we study associations between genotypes of one individual and phenotype of another individual (social genetic effects, SGE, also called indirect genetic effects). Importantly, SGE can be studied even when the traits that mediate the influence of the social environment are not known. For the first time we quantified the contribution of SGE to more than 100 organismal phenotypes and genome-wide gene expression measured in laboratory mice. We find that genetic variation in cage mates (i.e. SGE) explains up to 29% of the variation in anxiety, wound healing, immune function, and body weight. Hence our study uncovers an unexpectedly large influence of the social environment. Additionally, we show that ignoring SGE can severely bias estimates of direct genetic effects (effects of an individual’s genotypes on its own phenotype), which has important implications for the study of the genetic basis of complex traits.

Thus, the genetic makeup of those in your environment can affect your phenotype – that is the expression of your own genes in response to the environment, said environment also consisting of the genetic makeup of those around you.  To say this finding is remarkable would be a gross understatement.  And why not extend this paradigm to the group level? – the genetic makeup of one group in a territory can affect the phenotypic expression of another group’s genepool.  Perhaps James Bowery and I (with Bowery being the one who should be given credit for introducing the paradigm) were correct in using extended phenotypes to explain various human behaviors, including the White extended phenotypes of Jews and Coloreds.  The implications should be obvious – one group’s genetic structure can be a weapon through which a second group’s fitness is depressed by manipulation of that second group’s phenotype, e.g., by promoting maladaptive behavior on the part of the second group.  Examples can include Jewish and Asian manipulation of the behavior of Whites.

This synergizes with the social epistasis paper, since mutational load – resulting in, e.g., pathological altruism – can make one population vulnerable to the social genetic effects of another population.

*Key points of the summary:


These experiments with mice highlight opportunities and challenges for social genetic research in humans. One opportunity is to investigate social genotypes as environmental measures. There is already human research investigating social phenotypic effects, e.g., the social “contagion” of obesity (“Are your friends making you fat?”)…In addition to direct effects of the social environment/genome, synergies between social and personal genetics are possible. Specifically, social genotyping could be used to study interactions between a person’s genes and the genes of socially proximate individuals…A primary issue is the extent to which social genotypes are independently determined. Individuals who share traits may be more likely to sort into social units together, a phenomenon called homophily…Thus, while SGEs may shape an individual’s phenotype or modify the phenotypic effects of that individual’s genes, reverse causation is also possible; i.e., an individual’s phenotype and/or genotype may shape the genetic composition of their social environment…

That is also all remarkable and again something one would expect coming from Kevin MacDonald, Frank Salter, or myself.  Homophily – the foundation of the ethnostate?  The reverse causation reminds one of this article, written by a very sagacious individual.

Thus, the summary underscores the points about social genetic effects, and also underscores the basic meaning behind the social epistasis paper – that is, no man (or woman) is an island.  We – and by “we” I mean on both an individual and group level – affect each other on the most basic levels of genotype and phenotype.  Atomized individualism is exposed as a fraud, a mockery, a pipe-dream, a fantasy, with the reality being one of deep connections between the genotypes and phenotypes of various individuals and groups, modified by the mutational landscape, driven by social epistasis, and resulting in shifts in the relative fitness of individuals and groups.  Further, the interactions between genes and the “social environment” are bidirectional; hence not only does the environment shape the demographic composition of the population within it, but that population shapes the environment, making that environment more or less congenial for certain types of individuals and groups compared to others. In the end, all the “who cares” arguments with respect to race and EGI are exposed as either deception or self-deception. In a social species such as humans, “rugged individualism” (OK as far as it goes, within limits, as a concept for personal self-improvement) cannot be inflated into social policy, as it goes against scientific fact and objective reality.  That reality may be harsh to those who wish to hold onto cherished illusions – or to those who have a vested interested in peddling those illusions to others – but harsh or not, that reality is what we have to deal with. Failure to deal with reality will result in replacement by those unencumbered by illusion and less susceptible to being fooled by the deceptions of others.

The sort of policy initiatives to combat the problems outlined in these papers – initiatives that would actually work – would tend to fall on the, let us say, right of the political spectrum.  A complete biocentric reordering of society is required.  Following current trends will not only lead to cultural and social collapse, but genetic-biological collapse as well.  The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Finally, these papers support the ideas and the work of the following individuals: Frank Salter, Kevin MacDonald, James Bowery, and Ted Sallis. On the other hand, the anti-Salterian HBDers are once again soundly refuted, although they will of course not have the good grace to admit error.  And while I do not want to engage in Frankfurt School-style pathologization of the other side, these works raise the question whether critics of EGI are suffering from a heavy mutational load and/or are trying to influence others so afflicted.

It are the aforementioned four individuals who are on the side of human progress and who are moving to the light, while those others peddle a recipe for death, decay, destruction, and darkness.

Which side are you on?