Category: MacDonald

Der Movement in Der News: 10/21/17

It’s…Der Movement.

Consider this comment from a prominent Alt Right leader:

Spencer in Friberg [sic] are in a pickle here, because anything negative they say about Jorjani immediately raises the question: “Then why did you associate with him?”

Just substitute Johnson and Brimelow for Spencer and Friberg, and substitute Hermansson for Jorjani, and the statement has the same validity.

I’m not taking sides here.  A pox on BOTH your houses.

If you wonder why the “movement” rank-and-file supports failed leadership and enables an affirmative action policy, then consider what that rank-and-file consists of. Der Movement marches on.

Outsourcing panhandling:

Greg asked me to pen this week’s fundraiser update to bring a fresh voice and perspective.

This is an interesting, useful, and truthful analysis.

But we should turn the tables here.  Revenge and domination – really, revenge, since as separatists we don’t want to dominate others – can be motivating impulses for our side as well.  I remember an incident from my analog activism days; an older activist was explaining to a group of us younger fellows why he was an activist.  I paraphrase from memory:

Save the White race?  That bunch of losers?  The White race, today, is nothing.  Nothing.  I’m interested in REVENGE – revenge against the Jews and the others who are responsible for making Whites – MY race – into the losers that they are.

At the time, I thought this fellow – who was an “extremist” even among us racial nationalists – was a nutcase; today, two decades later, I have to admit that fellow was basically right, and we more moderate Nutzis were wrong.  It seems I’m getting more extreme with age, which goes against the mainstream paradigm.

I understand that “negative” comments like revenge go against the “oh, we really love everyone” meme that “movement” leaders have been trying to peddle to the mainstream.  But, hey, maybe the “youth culture” of the Alt Right would be more amenable to harder-edged memes.  Sure, the hard edge is not for the masses, but for the rest of us?  Why not?  But a hard edge doesn’t mean stupid ‘acting out” as described in the Florida link above.  It means instead highly disciplined behavior to overturn the System.  Winning is the ultimate revenge,

Advertisements

Der Movement: 10/13/17

Der Movement roundup.

Fascinating how Der Movement is obsessed with Evola (I’m unimpressed with his work myself; as a scientific empiricist, I find Evola’s  writings the worst form of subjective gibbering nonsense), yet are, in general, filled with a loathing and contemptuous disdain for the people from whence Evola sprang.  It’s ironic, as I suspect that Evola’s “spiritual race” stupidity was a sort of “memetic allergic response” to those sorts of attitudes.

Buchanan is more right than he knows.  Man on white horse syndrome, style over substance, betrayal, talk of amnesty – a heir indeed!

It seems unlikely that Marantz will offer either a retraction or offer sufficiently credible supporting evidence for his assertion.  Further, as I have previously asserted, anyone who uses the term “White supremacist” to describe White nationalists is being intellectually dishonest. MacDonald is not the only one who has a potential justification for a libel suit – Enoch has as well, if he can demonstrate that his views are nationalist and not supremacist.

I also find Marantz’s reply to MacDonald fascinating. When leftists contact Far Right leaders, digging around for more information for future “hit pieces,” it’s almost as if they are writing off of the same script; they all sound exactly the same: cheerful insouciance, bright-eyed innocence, insults couched in ostensibly friendly language, and, always, “I really want to know you better, I’m so very much genuinely interested in hearing your side.”  Emphasis added:

Hi Prof. MacDonald, as you’ll see in the piece, I bought your book and have read much of it, and I don’t think I characterized it unfairly. I have also read your many replies to your critics, here (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/tooby&pinker.htm …) and elsewhere, and I understand your rejoinders (that Pinker never finished the book, that Tooby takes too narrow a view of genetic variation and adaptation, etc.)—and yet I don’t think it’s unfair to say that CofC was roundly debunked by mainstream social scientists. First, I think it’s fair to say that Pinker debunked the book even though he didn’t finish reading it. Whether it’s fair to debunk a set of arguments without engaging with them fully is another matter, but it is what he did, as did many others, not limited to Tooby. Of course, as you know, on your site you tend to emphasize the positive reviews of your book (by Derbyshire, Gottfried, etc.) but there are, of course, many negative ones as well, many of which are by mainstream social scientists (Jefferson Singer, John Hartung, etc). Again, not all of these took the form of published papers, but they were “debunkings” nonetheless. Your work is obviously influential in certain circles, and I would love to talk to you about it sometime—I am genuinely interested in it, and I think you’d find me a fair interview—but it’s just a fact that the mainstream has largely rejected your arguments. Moreover, it’s a fact I’ve seen you acknowledge (and complain about) fairly often…

In any case, MacDonald’s work on the Jews has NOT been “debunked.”  It has merely been criticized.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with that criticism (I disagree) is one thing, it’s another to falsely claim that this criticism has been so definitive (and unanswerable) so as to constitute “debunking.”  This all shows what a sorry state media writing has fallen to – it’s all political propaganda, without substantive, objectively useful, content.

Hunter-Gatherers Again

It’s dem dere hunter gatherers!

More of the same.


The main part of my talk traces to evolutionary roots in the hunter-gatherer culture that is especially prominent in northern Europe.

Yes, sir!  Unfortunately suicidal pathological altruism seems especially prominent in Italy as well.

Must be all those Celto-Germanic Nordic Northern Italians!  Salvini looks like Dolph Lundgren’s younger brother!  Of course it’s the Salvini types who are the ones most in opposition to the invaders…

And the “movement” wheel just goes on turning, turning, turning….

In all seriousness, look at this chart (and note where it was posted!).

On the individualism-collectivism scale, Italy is in the same range as Sweden, and is more individualistic than the hunter-gatherer-enriched nations of Germany, Austria, Estonia, Poland, and Finland – never mind Russia!.  If we want to look outside Europe, then Northeast Asians, who are, so we are told, descended from Asian hunter-gatherers, are sky-high on the collectivist side.

To put it mildly, looking at that chart one cannot see any clear correlation between hunter-gatherer ancestry and individualism.

That is one major problem I have with Der Movement, particularly its Alt Wrong HBD faction. They are so emotionally invested in their theories (hello, Richard Lynn!) that they are not willing or able to deal with contrary data. The whole Popperian scientific method is foreign to them; instead, they are highly Kuhnian indeed.  They have their paradigm, and they’ll continue making up ad hoc explanations for poor data fits until the whole intellectual edifice collapses.

Isn’t it better to refine – or change – the paradigm before that happens?  Isn’t it better not to wait for anti-White leftists to point out the obvious flaws?  Isn’t it better to first listen to rightists who repeatedly warn you that there are serious flaws in your paradigm?  If you have scientifically valid explanations, then give them?  Just repeating the same things over and over again does not address the issues at hand.

A Diaspora Future For Whites?

A similar viewpoint.

I’ll chalk up the similarity of this piece to my essay here with the old adage: “great minds think alike.”

Putting aside the issue of memetic precedence and considering content, I believe the fundamental idea underlying both pieces need to be taken into serious consideration by those few serious-thinking activists.  Our future may well be more like For My Legionaries and A People That Shall Dwell Alone than The Turner Diaries or some other piece of chest-thumping “movement” nonsense.

King Cuck?

Where’s the EGI?

KMacD wrote up something about Steve King’s recent comments, and I have some comments of my own about it.  Emphasis added:

However, in explaining what he meant in a follow-up interview (where super liberal Cuomo states “[America is]known … as a bastion of diversity and it is an unqualified strength for us”), King makes it clear that he is all about cultural and genetic assimilation — that he opposes setting up of isolated ethnic/religious enclaves that remain isolated from the rest of society even after 2 or 3 generations. Indeed he looks forward to the day when all Americans look the same as a result of intermarriage, presumably some shade of brown, with genetically recessive blondness entirely eradicated. 

One can make all sorts of hand-waving excuses for King, but that is really inexcusable. Cuomo we know is a hardcore leftist – the over-rated and unassimilated son of an over-rated and unassimilated father. But for King to say such things is pathetic, and puts the latest “behold the King!” Alt Right hero worship in its proper perspective.  If we are going to have Third Worlders, better they remain in their enclaves than to mix their genes (and their bizarre and alien cultural mores) with White America.  

I’m of a mixed mind with respect to King’s comments with respect to the long-term strategic effects. On the one hand, on balance, his comments are a net positive, shifting the discussion in a more “rightward” direction than anything uttered by the “God Emperor: himself.  On the other hand, King’s cucked Alt Lite culturalism harms European genetic interests and diminishes the positive value of his original comments.  Criticism of King – even with the constraints he no doubt believes he has in speaking his mind – is justified since no one asked him to make the comments to begin with.  He decided to broach the subject and he has the responsibility for the direction he takes those comments, and he is thus responsible if the discussion does into a sterile cul-de-sac of cucked civic nationalism and aracial culturalism.  If he believes he will be “compromised” by going too far, then he could have hedged a bit more artfully, without throwing genetic interests completely out the window.  If he’s not capable of being artful and cagey when discussing these matters, then he should keep his mouth shut and his tweets off the Internet.

Here is where the “EGI Firewall” could have been helpful.  If King (and others) had an understanding of genetic interests and if he – and others – internalized the attitude that genetic interests are ultimate interests and that defense of those interests are fundamental and non-negotiable, then he would not have gone off in the aracial civic nationalist Alt Lite culturalist direction.  The EGI Firewall would have blocked off any temptation to throw race and blood “under the bus.”  He would realize that genetic assimilation, intermarriage, and the “browning” of White America were completely incompatible with the most important and basic considerations for the interests of his people.  He would have the theoretical underpinning to reject maladaptive memes, giving him the confidence and moral courage to defend the primacy of race and blood.  Ultimately, there is why Salter’s work is so important: if one internalizes the EGI worldview, then one will never put culture, economic growth, cognitive elitism, or any other proximate interests above the ultimate interest of biological fitness.  Thus, the “movement’s” relative disregard for Salter’s work proves destructive.  If the “movement” was immersed in EGI, then it would have percolated into the Alt Right and from there 

Perhaps, given his original comments, his views are closer to ours than he dares (publicly) admit; however, if so, he perhaps should have considered whether if it was worth making the comments to begin with if he was not willing to go all the way with them.  As I said, I see it as a net positive, but still, there’s some negativity mixed with the positive and the negativity could have been avoided if King had refrained from commenting to begin with if he was not ready to fully and unconditionally assert the primacy of a biocentric view.  It would seem that this will be the job of someone else, in the future, someone who will take the baton from King and run further (to the “right”) with it.

Cuomo then presses the point, asking if Muslims, Jews, Christians, Italians, etc. are Americans, and asserting that “they are all equal … We don’t need babies from any one of those groups more than from any other of those groups.” Rep. King then seems to say that, although everyone is equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law, not all groups contribute equally to society: “Certain individuals contribute more to society than others, and certain groups of people will do more on the productive side than other groups, that’s just a statistical fact.” Cuomo, being your standard liberal, says that these differences are entirely explained by differences in opportunity, whereas King puts the blame squarely on culture. But in any case, according to King, it has nothing to do with race: “It’s the culture, not the blood … it’s never been about race.” If children from other cultures were adopted into American homes (i.e., assimilated American homes), they would all grow up to be good Americans.

Again, I’m of two views here.  I can see the benefit of King stretching the bounds of discourse and making things easier for the next person to make more explicitly racial assertions.  But, still…to make such racially destructive comments, it’s not clear whether King perhaps should have not said anything at all if he couldn’t come out and support the primacy of race and blood.  You see, his comments are a double-edged sword – on the one hand, yes, it possibly eases the way for some future public figure to be more explicitly “racist,” but on the other hand, this scenario can be viewed as setting limits to discourse in that one can only broach these topics if one disavows explicitly biological arguments.  It is not clear, when all is said and done, which interpretation will win out – is King opening the door for race/blood/genetics or is he shutting the door?  I hope the former.  Given my oft-cited note that revolutions more typically occur when repression is suddenly relaxed, rather than when repression is greatest, if King can survive and prosper from his “controversial” comments, that can be viewed as a relaxation of repression making even more “extreme” public comments that much more plausible.

Rep. King is certainly pushing the limits of acceptable discourse in mainstream America. His talk about “other people’s babies” certainly does sound like he is referring to DNA, but he deftly dodged the bullet by framing it in terms of cultural assimilation.

One can give him the benefit of the doubt if we assume his intention is to stretch the discourse in a direction supportive of European racial survival. One wonders what would have happened had he pushed the limits past the boundary of race and DNA.  In the Trump era, it is not clear that the repercussions would be what they could have been before.  After all, the Left views his comments as they currently are as “racist White nationalism” – would their reaction would that much worse if he had gone “full racist?”  Maybe, maybe not…but we’ll need to wait for another incident to test those boundaries.

In the wake of the election, even some liberals, finally realizing this, began to call for an end to identity politics. Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind. Identity politics is profoundly antithetical to the liberal traditions of the West based on individualism.

This is why they are so intent on shutting down any hint of White Identity.  It is also why the Sallis Strategy of chaos and balkanization is as realistic now than it has ever been,

On the other hand, from an Alt Right perspective Rep. King’s comments fall short of the mark. 

Yes, indeed.

And neither King nor Cuomo deal with the reality of race differences in IQ and impulse control which are so essential to success in navigating the complexities of contemporary society. Within American society, the racial gap in academic achievement continues, unaffected by the hundreds of billions of dollars expended on uplift programs for low-achieving minorities. European societies are now seeing the same pattern with African and Muslim immigrants.

But kinship differences trump (no pun intended) these proximate HBD-style concerns. EGI is more important than levels of achievement, IQ, and impulse control.

Does anyone seriously think that importing millions of Black African converts to Judaism would maintain Israel as a Jewish state?

Despite King’s disclaimers, he seems quite aware that the left is eagerly awaiting the demise of White America. In a radio interview, he stated, referring to people like Latino activist Jorge Ramos, “Their effort here is to be celebrating because the United States is moving towards becoming, the whites becoming a minority, a majority-minority within the country according to what their plan is.”King also recommended that listeners read the novel, The Camp of the Saints, by French author Jean Raspail, “a book about Europe being overcome by immigrants which has also frequently been referenced by top Trump adviser Steve Bannon. The book has been criticized as presenting a racist view of immigration.”

That at least is quite positive.  Note in that book Asians lead the way to the dispossession of Whites. Life follows fiction, as always.

On the whole, then, King would seem to be at least implicitly White and probably, if you got into his heart of hearts, he really does get it. Realizing that non-Whites are eagerly awaiting Whites becoming a minority has a way of doing that.

Also, King’s saying that Western culture is superior does flirt with the possibility that something about European genetic uniqueness fed into the triumph of the West. And if there is indeed something genetically unique about the peoples who created Western society — a genetic basis for Western individualism, then of course one could not recreate European civilization with peoples from a different gene pool. What’s so amazing is that liberals like Cuomo believe with absolute certainty that this could not be the case. It’s an a priori  moral certainty, not subject to debate and immune to all the data from behavior genetics and the long history of ethnic and religious conflict. And if you don’t subscribe to such ideas, you are an evil person — a moral cretin rightly outside of the morally defined ingroup.

This is all true.

Although I’m critical of a strictly “culturalist” view, I certainly am not one of those people who say: “when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun.”  However, culture is not enough. Indeed, genetic interests are ultimate interests, so that race is more fundamental than culture.  No doubt culture is important, the most important proximate interest.  One cay crudely say: race with culture is vulgar; culture without race is effete.  More to the point is the realty that race and culture, genes and culture, are intertwined. A culture is the product of a specific genepool; however, that genepool is obviously influenced by culture, since the environment, of which culture is one prime component for humans, exerts selective pressure on the genes, hence shaping racial development and ethnogenesis.  It’s foolish for King and the Alt Right to pretend that a culture can thrive and grow with assimilated aliens; on the other hand, Nutzis act like vulgar barbarians when they dismiss out of hand the value of culture.

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?

Stupidity, Lies, and Cuckiness

The continued madness of Der Movement.

In contrast to the comically pathetic homoerotic fanboy mancrush worship of Trump by the likes of Roissy and the slightly more realistic Alt Wrong, we have the good sense of Kevin Strom, who sees the obvious beta race cucking of the Negrophilic civic nationalist Donald J. “Fats” Trump.  Trump’s inauguration speech was classic race cucking, as I’ve already discussed. Bitter disappointment awaits.

A YouTube comment which reflects the deep knowledge of the typical “movement” activist:

Isn’t Kevin MacDonald the pseudonym under which Molyneux wrote his anti-Semitic pamphlets?

Yeah, that’s right – MacDonald is Molyneux.  What stupidity. Der Movement marches on.

The Asiatrix at Majority Rights continues an analysis of the Enoch/TRS mess.  Two major arguments are made there.  First, that Enoch himself is Jewish.  The data presented are suggestive, but not definitive or conclusive. It is mostly circumstantial.  However, while I am not convinced, there is sufficient grounds to at least question possible Jewish ancestry. More data are needed; there seems to be more to this story than is coming from the TRS/pro-TRS side.  The second argument, and one for which there is stronger evidence, is that TRS was not an innocent victim here, but was attacked after they themselves attacked another forum.  There’s probably no “good guys” and “bad guys” in this story.  I do not have the interest to “go down the rabbit hole” after this latest round of “movement” insanity other than to express the general attitude of – “a pox on both your houses.”  Both sides here are discrediting racial nationalism and giving the Left, once again, a hearty laugh over Rightist dysfunction.  That most activists refuse to recognize that Der Movement is a defective failure is itself a manifestation of that defectiveness and failure.

When you have a half-Iranian in the fold, now “Persian” Iranians are “White.” Of course, “White” is a subjective term, and, of course, the mainstream “movement” does not consider a half-Iraqi, half-Nigerian such as myself to be White.  Maybe we should just talk about Europeans instead – which Iranians, “Persian” or not, definitely are not.

With well-placed contacts in the big networks and government, it’s almost certain that Trump is aware of the social engineering propaganda that has been staging shootings in order to pass gun control legislation. He is, after all, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. The Sandy Hook shooting, portrayed as the Pearl Harbor event of gun crime is, at least on the Internet, the most mocked and parodied piece of news fakery in recent years. Trump’s refusal to denounce “Sandy Hook deniers” has not only upset The New Yorker and Rachel Maddow, but worse than that, Trump has appeared on Alex Jones and even invited a Sandy Hook denier to speak at a rally.

Why is this kind of delusional nonsense posted at Counter-Currents? Imagine you are a parent – maybe even a Far-Right, red-pilled one – and your child was killed in one of these massacres.  Then you have to read paranoid retards promoting “denial” of the massacre. It’s all a hoax!  Wax dummies in the coffins! The parents are actors!  This is a goddamned embarrassment.  It’s worse than that. It’s sick and degenerate.

And:

Even author Tom Clancy, known for his inside knowledge concerning governmental operations, died in a hit ordered by Obama, according to ex-CIA agent Jim Garrow.

Yeah, and Miguel Ferrer died from an Israeli “hit” because he played a Jewish FBI agent in Twin Peaks. No wait, he was given cancer by Randall Flagg for sleeping with a “Free Zone” spy.  No wait, it was payback against Daddy Jose from Captain Queeq/Humphrey Bogart from The Caine Mutiny. Further, the moon landing was (of course!) a hoax, to conceal the fact the moon is made of yellow cheese, which would ruin the international cheese cartels. Of course as well, smoking has no link to cancer, all made up by “Jew doctors” trying to ruin the hearty yeoman American tobacco farmer, and, of course, vaccination causes autism because, well, you know, Jewwwwww doctors…..

Here’s the point, which is glaringly obvious to even a low-IQ Afro-Asiatic swarthoid like myself, but which is somehow missed by all of our racially superior “movement leaders.” When normal people, concerned with the racial crisis, come to the Far-Right, they are going to encounter lunatic crap like what this fellow Zaja and other conspiracy nuts are peddling, and all of that nonsense – completely superfluous to the core of racial nationalism – is going to delegitimize racialism for the “normies.”  They are going to think – “hey, if these racialists are so crazily wrong and paranoid about Sandy Hook and the Apollo Moon missions, maybe they’re just as stupidly paranoid and wrong about White genocide.  Let me go back to the mainstream Right and vote for Lindsey Graham.”  

I’m puzzled that otherwise intelligent people don’t get what I, in my abject inferiority, see as glaringly obvious.  And guess what – even IF some of the conspiracy theories are true, it’s still a bad strategy to focus on them, since it associates the core of racialist thought with superfluous issues (and they are superfluous to the common fundamental core of racial nationalism) and creates extra controversies that we do not need. The fact that most if not all of these theories are in fact obviously nutty tin foil hat stupidity just makes it exponentially worse.

“Time to act accordingly.”  When are any of these guys going to learn anything about operational security? Do NOT send Spencer out there essentially unprotected in the street to do interviews, for godssakes.  Have some security “buddies” with him.  Better yet, make sure some of the “buddies” are just blending in with the crowd, or even pretending to be “antis” – ready to defend Spencer the next time some coward tries a cheap shot.  The assailants would not have gotten away if there were some “bystanders” present ready for such events and capable of detaining such criminals.  

Of course, once this tactic is adopted, the other side will escalate, but that’s the point.  As the “Intolerant Politics” article makes clear, we’re headed for Weimar Germany type street brawls between Right and Left.  That’s better than one-sided assaults by Left on Right.  You do the best you can in every given situation. Having prominent activists standing alone, essentially with a “hit me” sign painted on them, is not doing the best we can in that situation. In every competitive give-and-take between opposing forces, you must always force your opponent to “up their game.”  Play the percentages and don’t give away any advantages.  This is similar to leftoid stupidity about racial profiling in airports – “if we racially profile, the terrorists will try and recruit some wholesome-looking White folks.”  Well yes, that’s the whole point – you make things as difficult as possible for them.  You force them to exert time and energy and resources getting around your best defenses, at which point, in the “evolutionary arms race,” you improve your defenses.  If you are going to let guys who look like Osama Bin Laden walk through airport security without a second glance, while at the same time strip-searching 80-year old Irish-American nuns, you are making things too easy for your opponents.  Make them prove they can escalate their game. Likewise, yes, if the Right has proper operational security, sure, the Left will put more effort (if they are capable of doing so) to circumvent it.  And that’s the point.  Make them prove they can do it.  It’s like in sports.   If a hitter cannot hit a curveball, keep on throwing him curveballs, until such time he proves that he’s learned he can hit it, at which point try something else. But if the hitter can slam a fastball and is inept against curveballs, why would you make it easy on him and throw fastballs?  Yes, eventually he may (or may not) learn to hit the curveball – but force him to prove he can do it. Play the percentages, improve your operations, and force your opponents to keep up – if they can.