The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
The Evolutionary Biology of Political Parties
Some Buffalo Don’t Rot
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Websites pour forth heated arguments between liberals and conservative about almost everything—or, as is becoming clear due to brain research, what seem to be arguments but in fact are genetically determined reflexes.

Even before the latest results from PET scans and functional MRI, simple observation convinced the sentient that rationality was not involved in political discourse. The chief evidence is that political adherences tend strongly to cluster together. For example, if you tell me that a man favors capitalism, with high confidence I can predict his attitudes toward China, race, immigration, environmentalism, bombing Iran, evolution, abortion, and so on. If you tell me that he advocates socialism, I will similarly know in advance his ideas regarding these things.

This suggests a genetic origin. The various views have no necessary connections to one another. For example, there is no logical contradiction in being in favor of national medical care and simultaneously of sending heavy weaponry to the Ukraine, or being against abortion but for the legalization of drugs. Yet one seldom sees such juxtapositions. Political views are a package.

This suggests that people start with genetically determined conclusions, and work backward to find supporting evidence.

In terms of evolutionary psychology, the genetic explanation makes sense. While saying so will enrage conservatives, it is clear that conservatism is a Darwinian relic, a selective adaptation to primitive times.

Consider the circumstances of the first barely-human tribes as they emerged from simian darkness on the temporally remote savannas. What psychological characteristics would natural selection give them?

First, intense loyalty to the group and hostility toward outsiders. The former allowed the cooperation needed within the group to survive and the latter a wise response to a savage world. Things that go grrrr in the night are not good, and when the chief means of intergroup intercourse is the tomahawk, it is well to be suspicious.

We see all of this in conservatives. They place high value on patriotism and, in the military, loyalty to the unit. They view other tribes with hostility: the Chinese, Moslems, Russians, Mexicans, Iranians, communists, Jews, hippies, and pacifists.

By contrast, liberals are more welcoming, open, and “laid back.“ This may or may not be a good idea, depending on circumstances, but it is a more-advanced evolutionary position and better adapted to survival in a nuclear age.

Perhaps the sharpest difference between Left and Right is that conservatives lack empathy or, in English, compassion. Evolutionarily this was strongly adaptive, in that being compassionate to a man running at you with a spear does not conduce to survival. It accounts for the espousal of capitalism, which provides a justification for working children to death in foreign sweatshops. Conservatives do not hate the children of Bangladesh. They are just genetically incapable of caring about them one way or the other.

The lack of empathy is neurologically verifiable. Harvard psychologists John Halpern and Alexandra Warmme-Coates performed PET scans on self-described liberals and conservatives. (Their motto is “Truth at Five-Eleven Kev”). When shown a photograph of the mangled remains of a puppy run over by a bicycle, the brains of conservatives showed no response.

In liberals, there was strong activation of the lateral caligulate, which mediates hostile emotions by communication through the posterior lobe of the sagittal epididymus to the occipital canunculus. This stimulates stress reactions such as high heart rate and sweating. These reactions were in fact observed.

When the photo was of the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange, liberals showed no response, but in conservatives the prefrontal palpate lit up, an indicator of intense interest.

In primitive times, there was no really effective way to preserve meat. Once killed, a buffalo soon rotted. Natural selection consequently led to the instinct to kill prey when the chance arose. Grab while the grabbing is good. This explains the otherwise incomprehensible acquisitiveness of billionaires, usually conservative. Our buffalo—hedge funds, skyscrapers, and factories—don’t rot, so grabbing the available now results in huge accumulations that the owner cannot practically use.

Among liberals, compassion, not accumulation, is the driving instinct. Examples abound. They favor immigration from Mexico because these poor people just want better lives, favor welfare so kids won’t have to go to bed hungry, want to close the sweatshops and keep the elephants from being slaughtered.

Their compassion is often narcissistic, counter-productive, based on faulty information, and even dangerous. For example, welfare has made blacks into helpless inmates of a custodial state. The desire to be nice to criminals, to abolish harsh punishments, keeps murderers and rapists on the streets. Because the behavior of liberals is genetically determined, they are not concerned with actual consequences. They don’t notice them. Yet the underlying motive is compassion.

Observe further that women are more compassionate than men. This is an evolutionary adaptation to the need to care for children and wounded men. It is why women tend to vote Democratic.

Genetic behavior pervades politics. Conservatives, without compassion, see the problems of blacks and say the hell with them. Democrats, more advanced and kindly, treat them as retarded children. As I write, there is much outrage over the slaughter of a lion in Africa by some dentist. In perfect accord with the genetic hypothesis, Liberals, sympathetic to a splendid animal needlessly killed, expressed outrage. Conservatives, carrying the instinctual baggage of times when killing animals had a purpose, were utterly incapable of understanding why the bunny-huggers were upset. It was just an animal, for God’s sake. Genetics.

Again, the underlying neurobiology can be demonstrated in the laboratory. At Berkeley, Dr. Chupamela Gonzalez and Dr. Louis Lu of the Ev-Psych Department, working on a grant from the Pentagon’s Office of Applied Psychopathy, performed an experiment similar to the one described above.

Liberals and conservatives were shown various photos and asked to say the first word that came to their minds. Shown a towering redwood in a primeval forest, liberals consistently said things like “beauty,” “lovely,” or “spiritual.” Conservatives said, “Sun decks.”

Similarly, shown a photo of a giant squid taken at depth in the open Pacific, liberals said, “beautiful,” “magnificent,” or “Oh…Jesus.” Conservatives said, “Sushi.” In evolutionary terms, this latter shows an adaptive practicality toward the natural world in which food and shelter were scarce.

ORDER IT NOW

We observe also that conservatives display aggressiveness and a desire, or at least a tendency, to attack out-groups. In the primitive world, this was adaptive across species: One sees the same thing—band together, attack outsiders–in modern dog-packs, for the same reasons. Republicans, conservative, are traditionally the party of war. Most career military men, and virtually all of the officer corps, glory in war and readily obey orders to attack anyone they are ordered to attack, including their own citizens. The police, also conservative, demonstrate the same aggressiveness and are likely to have the same neural responses, though further research is needed.

It therefore seems to me desirable to abolish websites and publications devoted to politics. They serve no purpose. Vituperation does not alter genes. Nobody ever persuades anybody, and can’t. The tweeters of the Left, and the woofers of the Right, are what they are, and will be. There is no purpose in talking about things. And think of the blessed silence.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Evolution, Left/Right 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    I’m a neo-fascist myself.

    My brains will light up both ways.

    • Replies: @Ace
  2. Tom_R says:

    LIBERALS ARE LIARS AND CONMEN; CONSERAVATIVE ARE HONEST AND TRUTHFUL.

    Interesting article, Fred. It seems you are trying to be sarcastic, and if so, good job.

    First of all, being a liberal or a conservative is relative.

    For examples, Judaists are liberal about immigration—to USA and EU, and want more of it, but they are conservative towards Israel and won’t let Gazans, the original inhabitants, immigrate to Israel, etc.

    The Chinese in USA are liberals, and want Americans to give them more visas, but in China, they are very pro-China and do not allow much immigration. In fact, China has net negative immigration—i.e. Emigration.

    As a conservative, I am very caring person—I care about the country and do not want more 3rd world immigrants who will destroy it through more crime, violence, job losses. It is not that I hate the Mexicans or the Chinese—I wish them good luck and good life—in THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

    In fact, most of the world is conservative—because that is common sense to care about your self, your family, your race, your country, etc.

    Liberalism is a uniquely American and European racket. Many countries do not have this liberal versus conservative dichotomy.

    Most of this research showing conservatives are bad people is a part of the liberal scam. Halpren is a Jewish name, so it may be a tactic to put down conservatives, since most of the Judaists (70%) are liberal and lying comes naturally to them (low morals).

    Here are some mistakes in your article:

    “For example, if you tell me that a man favors capitalism, with high confidence I can predict his attitudes toward China, race, immigration, environmentalism, bombing Iran, evolution, abortion, and so on. If you tell me that he advocates socialism, I will similarly know in advance his ideas regarding these things.”

    Well, go ahead then. I can tell you that many Bill Gates and other corporatists favor capitalism, so tell me their opinion on all these things and you will be wrong for the most part.

    I can tell you that Nazi Germany advocated socialism. So tell me their opinions on those things. Go ahead.

    “This suggests a genetic origin.” Not necessarily. If you are born in a America and most Americans love McDonalds hamburgers, that does not mean liking McDonald’s hamburgers has a genetic origin. All correlations are not genetically related.

    Liberals are liberal because they have some ulterior motive in asking us to be “liberal” to them, give them free benefits. Liberals have low morals. Eg. Bill Clinton, Harry Reid. Liberalism is just a scam.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s almost as if you seem to think you didn’t evolve, thus your ability to stand above evolutionary influences and see things as they really are. While us poor evolved creatures are left to flounder, thinking we have real reasons for our opinions, all the while our evolutionary programming is calling the shots.

    Lol, ironic given your Coulter article, I am sure your Mexican entanglements aren’t skewing your opinion on that one.

    So on one hand you write an incredibly slanted article ignoring obvious, deeply personal reasons your judgement might not be the best, then with your next article you sneer at others opinions and use rank pseudo science BS like evo psych as justification.

    Brilliant

  4. Republicans, conservative, are traditionally the party of war.

    Are they? Were Democrats not consistently known as the War Party from World War I through Vietnam? Is not the recent Republican promotion of war an aberration?

    Maybe you’re right, but I am a conservative who (like you) has served in the uniform of his country, and I am not the party of war.

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Not convincing. You want a convincing treatment of evolutionary psychology with regards to politics, read this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982947933/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0982947933&linkCode=as2&tag=anonymoconser-20&linkId=MKHVTYAT35CRILEW

    This post, on the other hand, is just kinda making stuff up and winging it based on hunches and feelings.

    Kinda like a liberal.

  6. Fred you got this one completely wrong. If you want to talk to me about how wrong I’ll go over it with you should you wish to email me phxfreddy at hotmail dot com.

    I don’t anticipate you doing so but I offered. I’m not going to go through the extensive debugging process for something so badly flawed as this piece.

    Many of your pieces are deeply rooting in realism such as your take on blacks / IQ’s and women and the war on men. But this? ……. It makes me wonder if you had a stroke.

    I will leave you with a tidbit. Conservatives such as the tea party clean up after they have a rally. Liberals? They leave it trashed. Pretty indicative of who has a higher emotional intelligence.

    From this and other experience I suggest that the rule of the mob is based on those who function in the liberal genetic mindset. NAZI’s were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS after all. Key word here being SOCIALIST. And like the NAZI’s liberals are not much on empathy except when it benefits them. For instance: illegal immigration. Do you really think they care about Mexicans? Or is it more likely the appreciate the votes?

    Ok Fred…you dissappoint pretty badly with this. You sucked me with your realistic attitudes previously but this piece is the type of science contained in “Globull Warming” …which is to say JUNK.

    Oh! And as for Wall Streeters? You’re really going to suggest CEO”s tend conservative? Pretty sure that is erroneous. I think at the very least they tend mildly liberal. CEO’s are insiders and one thing true conservatives are NOT is insiders. Our Federal Reserve masters see to that.

    Yours Truly

    Fred

    Atheist, Scientist, Engineer and most definitely and emotionally intelligent CONSERVATIVE.

    PS: your writing in this case is “puppy in a blender” genre. One of the lowest forms going.

  7. @Howard J. Harrison

    He should have titled this article “Puppy in a blender”

  8. And by the way: The usage of the term “conservative” and “liberal” all forked up these days….

    So now days it is considered accurate to say those advocating big government are “liberals” .

    Common sense says this is the shortest of all term views. Looking back over history with the world ruled by despots, dictators and kings seems to me that makes present day liberals more conservative than conservatives.

    Jeffersonian Liberal == Conservative

    So it seems you really fugged this up Freddy Boy.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  9. Observe further that women are more compassionate than men. This is an evolutionary adaptation to the need to care for children and wounded men. It is why women tend to vote Democratic.

    It wasn’t until the 1970s that women started to vote more Democratic than men. Similarly, women in Britain were more Tory than men throughout the 20th century. Evolution is working rather rapidly of late.

    • Replies: @Freemon Sandlewould
  10. @Howard J. Harrison

    Is not the recent Republican promotion of war an aberration?

    If you’ve read a lot of his columns, you’d know that Fred is stuck in 1865.

  11. @Freemon Sandlewould

    Many of your pieces are deeply rooting in realism such as your take on blacks / IQ’s and women and the war on men. But this? ……. It makes me wonder if you had a stroke.

    Either Fred is deeply rooted in realism, or he suffers from random brain injury.

    Everything someone says that you agree with is true; everything they say you disagree with is evidence that their thinker has blown a gasket. Maybe you’re more binary in your thinking than you’d like to admit.

    If Fred had a point–I’m not sure that he did–it’s that binary thinking is a weakness, and those that cater to it are the thinking man’s crack. It’s an old scribbler’s trick, but you can break the code easily enough: read the first and read the last, and you’ll get the point. The middle is where the per-word payment is justified.

    If you’ll permit me to extrapolate, let’s look at the Big Kahunas in the political world, Sanders and Trump. The Left loves them some Sanders, because he’s a self-admitted socialist, and the Right loves them some Trump, because he’s not a Republican. Two people, uniquely and identically unsuited for the executive office, yet wildly popular because they don’t pander. Fred does not imply, but I infer, that the actual American pulse is somewhere in between these two lunatics.

  12. Tom_R says:

    THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A PARTY OF THE RICH.
    HOW DEMOCRATS USE BLACKS, MEXICANS, WOMEN–ANYBODY THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON.

    Sorry to have to post again, but Fred, you have a lot things in your article that are not correct.

    For example, you said: “billionaires, usually conservative.”

    Fact: Most of the super rich support the Democratic party:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors-agree-democrat-party-new-party-rich/

    Sadly, most of these super rich who believe in capitalism (your key trait which you said is determinant of conservatism) also support more 3rd world immigration, China (where they have the slave factories where they can pollute without worrying about strict regulations and higher wages in USA). Bill Gates who is #1 billionaire and such a believer in capitalism, he believes corporations should be “free” to hire people on H1, sends lots of money to Africa for vaccinations, but has never given a penny to immigration restriction groups, as far as I know.

    Also, the Democrats do not really care about Mexicans or blacks. They are pro-immigration so they will more welfare-dependent people voting for them. If they cared about blacks, they would not support so much Mexican immigration, as Mexicans compete with blacks for jobs and welfare dollars. If they really cared about women, they would not allow rapists and murderers to enter illegally.

    About the puppy experiment, I could not find the original paper online. My search for John Halpren showed some papers where he seems to claim that peyote (a drug) and LSD are good!

    http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/featpeyote/

    So I am not too keen on believing somebody who is promoting illegal drugs, unless I see the original paper.

    Anyway, if the liberals became angry seeing the harmed puppy, but the conservatives were not angry, it may be because the conservatives felt sadness and hopelessness, or helplessness, not anger. If anything, it proves that liberals have difficulty controlling their temper and have a less active frontal lobe.

    • Replies: @Freemon Sandlewould
  13. This is what Fred Reed calls “bird wing” politics. Confuse the masses with just two choices; left or right?; conservative or liberal?; democrat or republican? This bewilders the common man and does not allow logical discussions. Don’t think, choose your side!

    Anyone who uses these terms is a fool and watches to much TV. They mean nothing.
    In reality, most leftists/liberals/democrats oppose illegal immigration, but are constantly told they cannot think that way. Most rightist/conservatives/republicans support universal health care, but are told they cannot. (e.g. they all use Medicare at age 65)

    I support those who break this mantra. Trump lambasts so called “free trade”, something all is fellow candidates hold dear, due to their corporate sponsorships.

    And what about that left wing/liberal/socialist Bernie Sanders’ recent comment on immigration that shook up the establishment:

    “Open borders? No. That’s a Koch brothers proposal; a right-wing proposal, which would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country,

    I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”

    http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/watch_bernie_sanders_the_koch_brothers_would_love_to_open_us_20150730

    The corporate sponsored Democrat Party must keep this madman out of any debates. He’ll stomp Hillary.

    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
  14. Dave37 says:

    Last paragraph sums it up well but I’m not really expecting any silence beyond all the words have lost meaning.

  15. DH says:

    For a moment you had me, Fred, but then I got to the ” Dr Chupamela Gonzalez” and “the Pentagon’s Office of Applied Psychopathy” part, lol, that was good.

  16. Fred, you say:

    “At Berkeley, Dr. Chupamela Gonzalez and Dr. Louis Lu of the Ev-Psych Department, working on a grant from the Pentagon’s Office of Applied Psychopathy, performed an experiment similar to the one described above.”

    I searched google, google scholar, and the Berkely psychology faculty pages for these two researchers, and didn’t turn up a single thing. If they do exist, could you point me in the right direction? It seems extremely surprising that there would be no internet presence at all for either of these two: presumably if they are Phds they published at least some papers in academic journals.

    • Replies: @Lucius
  17. Seems fairly accurate overall. Conservatives embrace and display manly virtues, protection of the family and tribe for whom they work to provide sustenance. Liberals enjoy the security conservatives create and use the protected space within to develop and elaborate cultural flair.

    Liberals are to conservatives as a wife is to a husband. She can’t do the heavy lifting but will put up curtains and a lamp shade over the conservative’s bare bulb lifestyle.

    Both are needed to make a good life and if we are to learn anything from Plato, it is that when each pays attention to excelling in their own domain then the outcome is a temperate society and Justice prevails. When either or both ignore boundaries and tries to do what properly belongs to the other then chaos and disorder results.

    In today’s world, liberals commit the sin of overreach. In an expanding civilization, conservative virtues will rule. A contracting culture will express itself in liberal values.

  18. @Tom_R

    That whooshing sound over your head was not an NSA drone, Tom.

    • Replies: @Anon
  19. Mike Zwick [AKA "Dahinda"] says:

    F. Scott Fitzgerald said: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function”

  20. @Orthogonal Detritus

    Oh, now, come on, Ortho. What realizable objective is there to attempting to explain Fred’s article to the likes of Sandlewould? You simply shake your head in amusement, and move on. One can’t essplain stuff to Lucy, nor shades of meaning to Philistines.

  21. LOL The first Frankfurt School argment I’ve ever seen that drew a sensible conclusion.

  22. lol

    Taking the piss out of everybody.

    Nicely written, Mr. Reed.

  23. Libertarians and free-market apostles are confused about which side of the political spectrum they’re really on.

    Too little military and police control and societies devolve into banditry so corporations favor conservative policies to restore order. Too much militarism means foreign markets shrivel due to chaotic conditions created by all-out war abroad while at the same time domestic markets become restricted to war-time essentials. Then, corporations favor liberal “peace” policies of tolerance which they hope will restore broader markets.

    Corporate flip flopping causes much distress to and hand wringing by free market disciples who–because they are dedicated to their cause with religious fervor–cannot see the seemingly contradictory behavior of corporations as simply the self-serving pragmatism that is the necessary consequence of maintaining market share and profitability.

  24. Lucius says:
    @Added Reality

    … you’re joking, right? Tell me you are.

    You should also Google “sagittal epididymus”.

  25. Jeff77450 says:

    Interesting article that I don’t entirely agree with but which has given me “food for thought.” Unless I missed something it didn’t address the phenomenon of “A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet and a Conservative is a Liberal who hasn’t been arrested yet.” We form an opinion but then receive new information or we have an experience that causes us to shift our view.

    For example, it’s unfortunate that the Left has coopted the word Progressive. I used to think in terms of Progressive = bad. Then I had an epiphany: I’m “progressive” in that I like good, positive, constructive change (and I don’t like bad, dysfunctional change). Technological advances, the righting of past wrongs, the cessation of bad practices are examples of good progress. Women getting the vote, child labor laws, the eight-hour workday, removing lead from gasoline are examples of good change. The unrelenting assault on traditional American values, the rise in the rate of out-of-wedlock births & single parent homes, the general raunch that pervades so much of popular entertainment and the mainstreaming of perversion, e.g. homosexual marriage, are examples of bad change.

    It also didn’t address the changes to our world-view that come from aging. When you’re young and responsible for no one but yourself it’s easy to say, “All drugs should be legal and everyone age 15-and-up should be able to practice ‘free love’ as long as it’s also ‘safe sex.’” But you get older, have children and when they’re approaching adolescence it’s, “Uh, beep-beep, back-the-truck-up. My kids aren’t doing any drugs and I will seriously harm anyone who tries to introduce drugs to them. And for sure my daughter isn’t going to be practicing ‘free love,’ especially will she’s living under my roof and on my dime. My son, that’s a different story…”

    I’m fifty-six, to date myself, and during my formative years I was bombarded with all the Kumbiya messages of the sixties and early seventies. I actually believed all that “we’re all equal now” stuff, “he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother,” etc. Prior to enlisting in the army in 1976 I had scarcely encountered any black people at all. To the extent that I thought about them I just assumed that, on average, they were good people who had been taught the concepts of Personal Responsibility and the Golden Rule—and many of them are—just like I had been. Then I went into the army and actually met some black people. I mean, *holy* *shit*. It was “Zulu Dawn” almost every single day. There were white & Hispanic degenerate thugs too, but the blacks took it to a whole new level.

    (During in-processing the army should’ve taken all of us young, naïve, brainwashed “I’m-okay-you’re-okay” white guys aside and given us John Derbyshire’s “The Talk: Nonblack Version.”)

    http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire#axzz3i8YaJCny

    Note: During my twenty-four years in the army & army reserve, in many far-flung corners of the globe, in both peace & war, I served with & under black soldiers, NCOs and officers who rank among the finest Americans who ever lived and who, as God is my witness, I would’ve taken a bullet for.

    Re. compassion: I’m a Conservative (with a Libertarian streak). From about the age of twelve until six weeks before my 39th birthday I had a “save the world; knight-in-shining-armor” complex. Got myself taken advantage of a few times. Then, on 10 January 1998, something occurred (in my personal life) that finally caused me to realize that most such efforts are futile. I still perform the occasional random-act-of-kindness. Several times in my life a stranger with a car that wouldn’t start has asked me for a “jump” and I’ve never refused them, no matter how inconvenient it was, to give just one example.

    Now I believe in, and try to practice, “Compassion tempered with pragmatism.” A “lifeboat” can only hold so many people and you’re not doing anyone a favor by pretending otherwise: http://dieoff.org/page40.htm

    I could go on but I’ve rambled too much already.

  26. Truth says:

    Now this is a good article, Fred; you do tounge in cheek well, when you are subtle with it. The underlying point is accurate as well; a lot of these so called “debates” over the internet are just two blowhards who like to read their own writing.

    However, Dario Nardi has done some interesting research vis-a-vis, Myers-Briggs typology and brain scans. That indicates neurological rigidity in opinion.

  27. Jeff77450 says:
    @Jeff77450

    Hey, I wasn’t given my full five minutes to edit my comment.

    Edit: “And for sure my daughter isn’t going to be practicing ‘free love,’ especially *while* she’s living under my roof and on my dime. My son, *on* *the* *other* *hand*, that’s a different story…”

  28. @Carlton Meyer

    This is the best comment I’ve read yet.

    To Fred: Have you ever been persuaded to change your views about anything at all? Have you ever had a conversation with another person and had an “aha!” moment when you said, “You’re right!” Only intelligent and open-minded people can have this beautiful experience. Imagine Plato and Aristotle discussing the nature of the good and the beautiful in the Athenian Agora, or Disraeli and Gladstone discussing the most compassionate way to deal with the problems posed by the Indian caste system over tea in the Diogenes Club.

    Intelligent people are open to new ways of seeing things; they are the ones that matter, not the delta-minus semi-morons. And the political websites (such as this one) are useful for them.

    • Agree: Jeff77450
  29. You fail to mention the people who decide elections — moderates, independents and the apolitical. All the chatter is for them. In this country they decide, and always have. These people are pragmatic. Their interest in politics varies with the extent to which it affects them and their families. Neither right nor left, they want peace, prosperity and opportunity for their children. Reagan won them over, but they’re also responsible for Clinton and Obama.
    Win them, and win the country.

    • Replies: @Freemon Sandlewould
  30. pyrrhus says:

    Speaking as a highly empathic conservative, who doesn’t even kill poisonous snakes or scorpions, I would point out that while all traits have a degree of heritability, it’s only about 50% on average…Also, intelligence can over-ride initial emotional reactions…Many of us empathize with 3d worlders, but also understand that letting them into our over populated and grossly indebted country will make things much worse…

    • Replies: @Freemon Sandlewould
  31. @Reg Cæsar

    And if you get to know enough women like I have…..I’ve been a bit of an internet scoundrel…..you realize women are not all that compassionate! ( I’m in Brazil cause they’re nicer looking and nicer people here so you have nothing on me regarding LatAm FreddyBoy )

    A jokey way to put it is thus:

    “The cheapest man going is more generous than the most generous woman!”

    “Seriously if she’s reasonable looking at all she’ll have no money anyway!”

    “I find women to be quite generous…..with themselves”

    Ok so yeah I talk money on this cause most of the other stuff women do is meaningless fluff. Not to say I don’t like fluffed on a regular basis but we’re talking rubber hits the road sort of stuff here.

  32. @pyrrhus

    Mexico does not send us Alberto Jesus Gutierez my friend the PhD student who gets a crazed twinkle in his eye when he talks about his thesis. They send us indians who have no genetic background for the highly technical society.

  33. @Fritz Pettyjohn

    [It’s not a good policy to leave a large number of relatively small comments, which tend to clutter up a thread. Instead, you should combine them into one or two much longer and more substantial comments.]

    Obama? I would say the credit crisis of 2008 and McCain the Pain gave us him. Oh the pain …the PAIN!

  34. @Tom_R

    Of course billionaires tend libtard. Guess why?

    Imagine there exist only 100 billionaires. Now I come along with widget and am #101.

    I just diluted their power by a whooping 1%…yes me alone.

    You can see how it could get out of hand really quickly from their point of view.

    All the better to put up the barriers. Years ago I did the following comic:

  35. @Orthogonal Detritus

    kind of upsets me though cause after discovering FreddyBoy I went through his entire FredOnEverything archive and found it all pretty much factual. Then he has this brainfart or poorly conceived joke without laughs.

  36. joe webb says:

    “In the primitive world, this was adaptive across species: One sees the same thing—band together, attack outsiders–in modern dog-packs, for the same reasons.”

    Fred, or Alfredo with his mexer-love, writes a clever but obfuscating column here. Even the jewyorktimes acknowledges , for example, today in a story on Mexico that corruption obtains at all levels of government South of the ‘border.’

    Where I live, Mexicans are very friendly, never mind their sex crimes, etc. This leads to a ‘politics of Friendship’ as opposed to a politics of Principle. Cronyism is friendship in high places.

    As Spengler put it, a people or race that has lots of babies “has race.” Yeah, but what sort of race?

    I talked to a guy in a joint last night during the debate. He called himself “British” thus pee-ceeing the fact that he is English, like most of myself. He protested my Trumpeting Trump and said, what gives you the right to be prejudiced?. I said, it is not a matter of Right, it is just the way we are…the biology argument of course.

    This is the Politics of Principle demonstrated by the Brit. He looked like me…good anglo-saxon and probably Scandinavian blood. But he be liberal….what right do I have?…etc. I laughed.
    —–

    Point: we live more and more in a world that is getting more primitive, per Alfredo, that is, getting more primitive socially…the Invaders are Within and More Are Coming. Either the Mexers who
    lack the Principle of my above interlocutor, the British dope, or chaotic Negroes, or A-rabs, or Chinks who also lack Principle…not in their genes.

    So we can properly analyze along the lines of HBD and recognize it, or just make cute, like Alfredo.

    Throw out the friendly mexers, the chaotic Negroes, the rapacious (family oriented ) chinks, and all races other than Whites. That is what is coming, or we go back to the swamp. We are already knee-deep in the slime, from gutter sex to the inability to discriminate black from white.

    Joe Webb

  37. OutWest says:

    I admit to not reacting to the puppy picture. My reaction is that it’s a simplistic, obvious button-push. Is conservative/libertarian synonymous with analytical?

  38. “Dr. Chupamela Gonzalez”

    Fred is yanking your chains, dudes.

    Look up “Chupamela”.

  39. Randy says:
    @Howard J. Harrison

    Here’s a list of the party of peace’s entanglements

    Mexican-American War James Polk-Democrat

    WWI-Woodrow Wilson-Democrat

    WWII-FDR -Democrat

    Korea- Harry Truman Democrat

    Vietnam- Kennedy, LBJ-Democrats Ended under Nixon Republican

    • Replies: @Realist
  40. The behaviors and survival constraints on hunter-gatherers indicate that liberals are their cultural/biological descendants. Egalitarianism, infanticide, weak property rights, environmentalism, less hierarchal and more fraternal social organizations, and the morality of liberals has less emphasis on loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

    Conservatives reflect more of the behaviors and values of settlement people. Much greater reliance on meritocracy, much more pro-life, stronger property rights based on wealth creation, the environment as a tool, more hierarchal and less fraternal social organizations, and morality that has more emphasis on loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

    And libertarianism is an ideological evolution of conservatism that emphasizes greater individual liberty.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
  41. Retired says:

    While we obviously have innate tendencies, we also are created beings, God made us in his image. If we were go get Jesus’ opinion of modern American politics, he would quickly elevate the conversation into a discussion of man’s desire for the heavenly realms, so as to make politics look like a Ford vs. Chevy argument.

    BTW I have believing friends all over the ideological spectrum.

  42. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    “It therefore seems to me desirable to abolish websites and publications devoted to politics. They serve no purpose.”

    There is the Alt Right sphere that goes beyond ‘left-right’ orthodoxy of the mainstream.

    Also, while there is the Conservative mentality and Liberal mentality, almost no one is entirely ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. Many people are a mix of those things.

    Also, conservative mentality can be made to serve leftist causes, and liberal mentality can be made to serve rightist causes. And both mentalities can be made to serve the same cause. Take Jew-worship, Negro-worship, and Homo-worship. Both parties are now for that stuff. Jew-sus died for our sins. Let us worship MLK the woman-beating Jiver. Let us either celebrate homosexuality or, at least, offer up no resistance against it. Dems wildly applaud it, Republicans silently assent to its goals.

    Communism is a leftist ideology, but by the 80s and 90s, Russian conservatives were communists harking back to the glory days of the Soviet Union as the Great Empire.

    Christianity is, in many ways, a leftist religion of universality and equality, but it became the faith of the European Right.

    So, leftism can serve conservatism.

    As for today’s so-called ‘leftists’, many are so pro-corporation since corporations are festooned with ‘gay’ celebration. Once Hollywood and media made ‘gayness’ the new holy faith, even ‘greedy corporations’ could be forces of ‘progress’ as long as they went ‘gay, gay, gay’.

    So, we have rich whites in big cities raking in mega-bucks — ‘greed’ — , but they are associated with ‘progressivism’ than with privilege.

    Or look at Ivy League schools. They epitomize elitist privilege, but all their yammering about ‘equality’ fooled so many people into seeing them as ‘leftist’ institutions.

    But the biggest riot be the Jews. Jews are very much into Jewish consciousness, Jewish self-regard, Jewish nationalism, Jewish identity, and Jewish interests but they fooled people into believing that they are ‘leftist’. Jews only used leftism to undermine and subvert gentile power to serve Jewish power.

    Jews will bitch about white ‘racism’ toward blacks — to instill paralyzing ‘white guilt’ in every white heart –, but the very same Jews will speak of Arabs and Muslims as ‘animals’, ‘savages’ and ‘scum’ who don’t deserve human rights.
    According to many Jews, it is shocking, so very shocking, that whites once argued that blacks were not fit for modern democracy. But these same Jews will make the very same argument for Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians.

  43. Corvinus says:

    “I care about the country and do not want more 3rd world immigrants who will destroy it through more crime, violence, job losses.”

    Undoubtedly, SOME immigrants from Mexico and China and India and Nigeria are degenerates. But they are decidedly not “destroying” this country.

    “It is not that I hate the Mexicans or the Chinese—I wish them good luck and good life—in THEIR OWN COUNTRY.”

    I would surmise Native Americans felt the same way about Europeans.

    “…since most of the Judaists (70%) are liberal and lying comes naturally to them (low morals).”

    [Laughs] that is a ridiculous statement. PEOPLE lie.

    “You’re really going to suggest CEO”s tend conservative? Pretty sure that is erroneous.”

    Actually, big business prefers fewer regulations and right to work laws. Conservative principles.

    
“Fact: Most of the super rich support the Democratic party”

    You really need to look at the chart you provided more closely. Those “super rich” folks donating to Democrats consisted primarily of…UNION GROUPS.

    “Also, the Democrats do not really care about Mexicans or blacks. They are pro-immigration so they will more welfare-dependent people voting for them.”

    To immigrate into the US, you must have a sponsor (generally the family member, such as the spouse, bringing you into the country) who will testify, and provide proof, that he or she has enough money to support you, if you are unable to support yourself, or if you lose your job. This agreement means that until you naturalize as a U.S. citizen or have been a taxpayer for 10 years, your sponsor’s income will be taken into consideration in deciding whether you are poor enough to qualify for means-tested benefits, and that if you do take those benefits, the government can sue your sponsor to recover those costs. You can also sue your sponsor if they fail to support you at the poverty level.

    “Throw out the friendly mexers, the chaotic Negroes, the rapacious (family oriented ) chinks, and all races other than Whites.”



    Joe Webb, how do you propose to put forth your plan if most of these people are American citizens? Furthermore, define “whites”.

    
“That is what is coming, or we go back to the swamp.”

    
Joe Webb, there is observably no major movement in the United States that is seeking to initiate a race war.

    “We are already knee-deep in the slime, from gutter sex to the inability to discriminate black from white.”

    Do not people have the liberty to marry and procreate with whomever they choose? If not, how do you propose putting forth any plan to ensure that the races do not “mix” with each other?

  44. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Albertson

    Was it the same whooshing sound over your head Jeff?

  45. Alfa158 says:

    Uh folks, Fred is being ironic. This was a parody of the way leftists try to use pseudo-science to label conservatives as defective. There is nobody at Harvard named “Warmme-Coates” showing people photos of magled puppies while doing PET scans.

  46. DWright says:

    Well Fred wrote this while half in the bag or in a deeply sardonic mood.
    Knowing his writing and stated views (even on evolution) he had to be tweaking us.

  47. Doing what you do, aren’t you Fred. Stir that pudding, you old provocateur. Well, between the Oprah watching Eloi and the NASCAR fan Morlock, I prefer to be the Time Traveler

  48. Sam Shama says:

    HAHAHAHAHA.

    Halfway through the read, should clue all, that Freddie is taking the long piss!!

    Especially on those commentators who forgot “brevity is the soul of wit” – (quote attribution to William S. via @Geokat62)

  49. Isabella says:
    @Freemon Sandlewould

    Fred has a very finely honed sarcasm. I’ve read all of his blog pieces from his own blog. It’s amazing the way so often so many can’t see it.
    His best was a take on the Middle East situation (to show how many people know absolutely nothing about a place and people they are happily supporting the bombing of) using so many deliberate “errors” (I seem to remember the Falafel Party !!.lol). And apparently absolutely no-one “got it” . The only ones I didn’t get related to military equipment, but then I know nothing at all of that field. The rest of piece put me “on guard” though.

    I think you’ll find this is the same. Fred has written reams of excellent stuff on evolution which touches (as it must) on genetics and biochemistry. He knows that genes code for proteins. One per gene as far as we can tell right now. He knows that if you want to say something is genetic, you have to be able to point to the gene (and since the Human Genome Sequencing Marathon, we know them all. Also that there are not nearly enough – evolutionists have been pretty quiet about that ever since).

    He knows you can’t point to a gene for “conservative” nor a biochemical pathway. It’s called satire folks !!!

    I have another explanation, with about as much evidence as so called “evolution”. The driving factor in choices and behaviours is our spirit / soul – in a universe where all is energy, this is simply another energy field. It enters the collection of aggregated energies point we are which we term “matter”, and in order to express itself it uses a spongy thing called a brain. So – if you have the soul of lump of soggy mess, for example, you will express this by brain patterns which co-relate to what Fred is calling Conservative (these do actually exist by the way, but they are the brain patterns of confirmed psychopaths – people with a complete inability to empathise or have a conscience, and can lie their teeth off ). It’s estimated they are between 5% – 15% of the community. Whether this figure correlates with Conservatives I dont know. Bit of a worry if it does.
    However, since compassion, empathy, having a conscience, are definitive of the human consciousness, it being difficult for a lion to empathise with it’s prey and still survive, my theses is that such people are actually not “people”. They are Not human. They just look it. They fake it. But they aren’t it. Oh – and they can’t be reasoned with or educated out of or changed. They can never be rehabilitated or changed. Remember that when one strays into your life.

    Good article Fred. I always love your sense of humour. (The Mexican disaster one was the best).
    Cheers

  50. @Tom_R

    Psychopaths are spectacular to distort things.

    Great text!!

    I’m hybrid, a primitive ”common sense” cons and empathetic lib.

    Most of liberal politicians are not real liberals, by heart. Nor many or most chinese immigrants. Also about jews, i think they like a histrionic miniature of white people and more high functioning psychopathic ones. Idealistic stuff is a white thing.

    ”Liberals”, seems tend to have higher behavioural diversity than ”conservatives”. And we have the socially liberals and politically liberals. I think socially liberals tend to be little more narcisistic.

  51. @Drapetomaniac

    There’s probably a lot of merit is this argument, and it ties in with what Kevin Macdonald says about North Europeans being more hunter gatherer orientated that Southern European and Middle Eastern people. This is probably one of the reasons why frontier countries like Sweden, Canada and New Zealand and whitebread US states like Minnesota tend to be particularly liberal and PC.

    Libertarianism seems to be a colonial development of conservatism emphasisising rugged individualism and is an optimistic ideology born of the high wage/cheap land relationship that colonial people experience when first developing a country. As land gets more expensive and countries get more crowded/multicultural they are likely to become less libertarian and more conservative or liberal.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  52. Deduction says:

    I’ve never read an article that was more wrong.

    First up, in most of the world being capitalist also entails being liberal on social matters. And thus your entire theory goes down the pan.

  53. […] The Evolutionary Biology of Political Parties – The Unz Review […]

  54. Fred Reed says:

    Wow! I’m glad a friend suggested I check out the comments. I wrote the thing as a parody of ev-psych pieces, as a spoof, a joke. I figured the fictitious neuroanatomy and silly names would make that obvious. I was just having fun. Mea culpa. The article does not necessarily represent the views of the author. Apologies.

  55. Sam Shama says:
    @Fred Reed

    You almost had me, until midway:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-evolutionary-biology-of-political-parties/#comment-1046774

    nice break from reading all the foreign policy stuff!

  56. joe webb says:

    Alfredo, yup it was clear that it was satire, but humor is always, ALWAYS, a rhetorical device to minimize or neutralize seriousness.

    In other words we are in a serious situation, not a humorous situation. HBD has become the spear on which to skewer the lunatic liberals who want us all equally negroized, mexcan luvin’, hear no, see no, do no evilin’ like insisting that the West is White and will only be pulverized by third world types.

    You like Mexico, and your I hear Jewish-Mexican wife ( that is cheating by the way, you don’t really have a mexican wife if she…) is just fine, but don’t tell us yankess that we are supposed to luv your race-traitoring ecumenism. We do not, but personal life has its private rights.

    However, you are in the public realm, and you are a subversive of everything truly HBD and White.

    Yours is a kind of smugness that is dangerously close to a Jon Stewart crypto jewish attack on Whites. Yeah you claim you are with us but your humor betrays you…you got some liberal blood in you.

    Which gets me back to the lib/conservative issue that is reported in studies of genetic apparent predispositions…the ‘liberal’ predispostitons are not actually ‘liberal’…they are altruistic. White altruism ( no other race possesses it anywhere like its robustness in Whites) is hijacked by liberal/radical/jew propaganda. Our altruism is great when kept at home…it has made us the most ‘humane” of races and fostered friendliness and trust, and a “democratic’ attitude toward less talented as well as the reverse. This is called love in Christian practice.

    It is a lie that our current genetic ‘liberalism’ actually loves the Other…at root. At root, it is for Us, not Other races, etc. But Jews and lib/rad totalitarians tag teaming with International Capital have twisted it into pee-cee, the auto-immune disease these days of Whites. It is our Achilles Heel that the Jews, laughing all the way to the Judenstaat, find their best target, blazing away in their lying race equality books, their academic and media hustlers’s holier than thouism, etc.

    Keep your Mexican boosting to yourself.

    Joe Webb

  57. Realist says:
    @Randy

    What a convenient place to stop.

  58. Funny, how there seems to be such an inverse proportionality of hate to the ability to appreciate humor.

    I suspect Fred expected the comments would make that point for him

  59. Very thin. Certainly Fred’s worst since, er, last week. Actually, the dichotomy you discuss is nothing more than the dichotomy between Alphas and Betas. In trying times–i.e. 99.999 per cent of human history–Alphas are leaders, heroes, designers, investors, the ideal model of masculine development. Betas are the followers, who never get the pretty girl, the big house, the medals on the chest or the pat on the back, thus cultivating oceans of bitter anger for not having that which they don’t deserve. In decadent times, via that endless bitterness and subversion, Betas are in the ascension and their tactic is to devalue the tenants of masculinty, so that, for example, heroism and leadership and vision are no longer attributes but examples of psychopathology. That’s where we are now. A good war would straighten things out fast, followed by a nice purge. Stalin was a monster but he got it; he purged not traitors but the weenie Beta elite (intellectuals, belles lettrists, writers and actors, the “creative”) because he knew they WOULD BE traitors if allowed to fester while producing and contributing nothing Smart guy for a monster.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  60. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Fred, I had a great laugh. Thank you!

    Behind the obvious satire there is the truth of how the propaganda machine deceptively and forcibly lumps people into the two camps. Best example was after 9/11 the “conservatives support wars” vs. “liberals oppose wars” scam. The exact opposite was the truth.

    BTW, we might be genetically related because I agree with you 99% of the time.

  61. @Freemon Sandlewould

    The word “Liberal” is one that has been perverted by what we now are given to understand, are Liberals

  62. @Fred Reed

    That some took it seriously is a little alarming.

  63. Black ghetto thugs have very little empathy. But when they bother to vote, they vote Democratic. So are they liberal or conservative?

    I am very pro environment. So I don’t want my country to be overpopulated. So I am very much against the Democrats who would would like to bring the poorest 3 billion people on earth into my country and put them on welfare.

    The only truly pro-peace candidate for the presidency in my lifetime was strict fiscal conservative, Republican Ron Paul. It was Hillary who convinced Obama to aid the jihadists who forced out Qaddafi, tortured him, and murdered him. Hillary joked about that. The result is that now Islamic State has Libya as a major recruitment center. So how pro-peace are those Democrats, really?

    I think the only economic system that works is a sensibly regulated capitalism. Not laissez-faire capitalism, not socialism. In short, something fairly close to what we actually have, rather than some abstract ideal that never works in practice. So does that make me a heartless conservative or a mushy liberal?

  64. @Fred Reed

    “Lateral caligulate” had me grinning. If it isn’t a real structure, then it ought to be.

  65. @unpc downunder

    America was founded as basically a libertarian country with a strong streak of conservatism. By the time of Lincoln it was leaning conservative. In the early 20th century the progressive/liberal arose, and together with the conservatives, ruined most of the rest of that century and the 21st century so far. Due to different waves of immigrants. Suppose 1% of the world’s population is libertarian, 73 million versus 7.27 billion who are not libertarian. It doesn’t take too much immigration to overwhelm them.

    A libertarian recognizes that a free market economy is best and that entails very strong property “rights”. The animal world (that includes a very large chunk of mankind) operates with our property or my property behaviors. That is necessary for survival in a zero sum game.

    The positive sum economics of the modern technological world has developed a concept of other people’s property in addition to the two from the animal world. A very strong concept of other people’s property, self and wealth, is the basis of a free market, a free market’s high productivity, and libertarianism.

  66. KarlS says:

    A study by psychiatrist and expert on a lotta things Dr. I.M. Kookie has determined that most readers of the Unz Review are missing a part of their temporal lobes and thus suffer from Witzelsucht Deficiency Syndrome.

  67. Read Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt.

  68. @Otto the P

    ”alphas” are psychopaths. betas are followers of psychopaths. Human evolution just will happen when alphas were eliminated. All the problems in west are being caused by psychopathic alphas. How betas could have the power if they are all the time just following their natural masters** The omega is a real wise.

    When alpha primates were eliminated in a certain population of primates, the peace become a common place among them.

  69. Corvinus says:

    “White altruism ( no other race possesses it anywhere like its robustness in Whites) is hijacked by liberal/radical/jew propaganda. Our altruism is great when kept at home…it has made us the most ‘humane” of races and fostered friendliness and trust, and a “democratic’ attitude toward less talented as well as the reverse. This is called love in Christian practice.”

    Praytell, what Bible passages offer support to your outlandish assertion?

  70. In liberals, there was strong activation of the lateral caligulate, which mediates hostile emotions by communication through the posterior lobe of the sagittal epididymus to the occipital canunculus.

    Yeah, right.

  71. For example, if you tell me that a man favors capitalism, with high confidence I can predict his attitudes toward China, race, immigration, environmentalism, bombing Iran, evolution, abortion, and so on. If you tell me that he advocates socialism, I will similarly know in advance his ideas regarding these things.

    This suggests a genetic origin. The various views have no necessary connections to one another. For example, there is no logical contradiction in being in favor of national medical care and simultaneously of sending heavy weaponry to the Ukraine, or being against abortion but for the legalization of drugs. Yet one seldom sees such juxtapositions. Political views are a package.

    I suspect that one reason so many people took this piece seriously is that Fred led it off with the above, which seriously makes perfect sense.

  72. Referring to blacks as “retarded children” is disgustingly humorous. They are concrete thinkers that have very little ability to think in the abstract. Negroes absorb information that is in front of them at any given time. Thinking about complex issues or or future time consequences is not their strong point. Couple that with their lack of impulse control, it makes them very unpredictable, and often times very dangerous. So, I guess I can understand why people do think of them as retarded children, but they are simply the product of evolution in Africa. In the dark continent it was about brute force, the toughest most brutal savage took control of the tribe and used it to his liking. There were not great thinkers as were in Greece. It was not a democracy, just chaos.

    • Replies: @Truth
  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    John Halpern exists as advertised. Google does not know Alexandra Warmme-Coates. It is an odd name in the first place. We have been hoaxed. Others sites have picked this one up. Who is the source?

  74. Truth says:
    @Bruce Jenner

    Oh, so they are “concrete thinkers” who are “very unpredictable.” Gotcha.

  75. The biological groundedness of liberalism and conservatism implies the ideological bankruptcy of both camps. It doesn’t mean that a coherent politics is impossible.

  76. Corvinus says:

    “Referring to blacks as “retarded children” is disgustingly humorous.”

    No, it’s disgusting.

    “Thinking about complex issues or or future time consequences is not their strong point. Couple that with their lack of impulse control, it makes them very unpredictable, and often times very dangerous.”

    Actually, very few blacks fit this description.

    “In the dark continent it was about brute force, the toughest most brutal savage took control of the tribe and used it to his liking.”

    Using your own metric, Europeans fit this description.

    “There were not great thinkers as were in Greece. It was not a democracy, just chaos.”

    Have you ever read about Mansu Musa, for example?

  77. Dutch Boy says:
    @Tom_R

    Furthermore, capitalism is the old liberal economic system (sometimes still referred to as liberal capitalism). Capitalists are notoriously indifferent to their country’s welfare if there’s a buck to be made (hence Jefferson’s observation that “a merchant has no country”).

  78. Ace says:
    @Priss Factor

    A compassionate conservative will jam the gears too.

  79. @Jeff77450

    I could go on but I’ve rambled too much already.

    First thing you have said that I agree with.

    What part of this article is a joke don’t you get?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave