The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
Darwin on the Rise and Fall of Human Races
🔊 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

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (London: Penguin, 2004 [reprint of second edition, London: John Murray, 1879]).

Western intellectual life today is characterized by a marked schizophrenia. On the one hand, virtually everyone accepts the scientific theory of Charles Darwin concerning the emergence and evolution of the various species in the world, including humanity, through the process natural selection. The only exceptions to this rule are a few Creationist hold-outs. On the other hand, our culture denies the biological reality of race and the relevance of hereditarian thinking to human societies. Our egalitarian culture rejects heredity’s implications in toto — both the descriptive (in-born human differences between individuals and races) and prescriptive (e.g. eugenics). Given how taboo racialist thinking still is, it is then useful — in order to think freely — to go back to the roots of evolutionary thinking by looking at what Darwin himself had to say about human evolution and racial differences.

The concept of race or lineage is central to Darwin’s evolutionary thinking. His classic The Origin of Species is indeed subtitled By Means of Natural Selection of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In one place, Darwin defines a race as the “successive generations” of a particular population (102). Darwin’s model for evolutionary change is simple and powerful: every species will tend to bear too many offspring, leading to overpopulation, a huge percentage of these will die before reaching maturity or in competition with others (whether of the same species or not), those who survive this struggle will be those with the traits best suited for their particular environment. The constant generation and culling of “races,” that is to say new of populations with different traits, is then central to his system, which also applies to human evolution.

The foundation of Darwin’s entire system is the reality of heredity — that the offspring of plants, animals, and humans tend to inherit the physical and/or mental characteristics of their parents. Concerning humans, Darwin follows the observations of the ancient philosophers in asserting that man’s specificity is in being both a social and rational creature.[1]Indeed, Darwin approvingly refers to the Roman philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius in places (121, 148). He also, like many philosophers, considers familial affection to be the foundation for social affection (129). This, along with his free hands, have enabled humanity’s remarkable conquest of the Earth: our intelligence and dexterity allowed our prehistoric forbears to fashion tools, our social instincts enabled us to work together to bring down much larger animals, and the combination gave us a unique ability to adapt to the most varied environments. Darwin says concerning intelligence and sociability: “The supreme importance of these characters has been proved by the final arbitrament of the battle for life” (68). Our hands and brains were incidentally developed at considerable cost: we are awkward bipeds and the tension between enormous heads and narrow hips means that childbirth is quite dangerous to our women.

Darwin takes differences in intellectual ability for granted, both between individuals and races: “The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said” (45). Furthermore: “The individuals of the same species graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence” (100). He had no doubt that psychological traits such as personality and intelligence were heritable:

[I]n regard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other domestic animals.[2]Darwin acknowledges that humans had never so subjugated another human population as to carefully breed them as we do domestic animals (although, we might observe, human reproductive patterns have been profoundly influenced by very varied power asymmetries and socio-cultural norms). He notes however the existence of infanticidal eugenics in ancient Sparta and that Frederick William I of Prussia had created a regiment of tall grenadiers on whom “it is asserted that many tall men were reared in the villages inhabited by the grenadiers and their tall wives” (47). Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good temper, &c., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts in almost every family; and we now know through the admirable labours of Mr [Francis] Galton, that genius which implies a wonderfully complex combination of high faculties, tends to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families. . . .

Domesticated animals vary more than those in a state of nature; and this is apparently due to the diversified and changing nature of the conditions to which they have been subjected. In this respect the different races of man resemble domesticated animals, and so do the individuals of the same race, when inhabiting a very wide area, like that of America. We see the influence of diversified conditions in the more civilised nations; for the members belonging to different grades of rank, and following different occupations, present a greater range of character than do the members of barbarous nations. (45–46)

Humanity’s Moral Improvement Through Perpetual Tribal Warfare

An “uncontacted tribe” in the Amazon responds to a helicopter.
An “uncontacted tribe” in the Amazon responds to a helicopter.

Darwin asserts that the same relentless struggle for survival was the driver for humanity’s evolution into a more intelligent, social, and even moral being. Human tribes spread across the globe, reproduced beyond the ability of their environment to sustain them, and entered into relentless competition and warfare with other tribes.

Darwin considers the emergence of pro-social traits such as sympathy, love of kin, shame, and regret to be central to human evolution. These feelings were certainly not universal however. He observes that prehistoric tribes, like modern savage tribes,[3]We recall the recent case of the Asian-American missionary John Allen Chau who visited the indigenous tribesmen of North Sentinel Island in order to convert them to Christianity and was promptly massacred by them. Between 1970 and 2005, tribal peoples killed about 120 workers of Brazil’s National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), mostly in episodes of first contact.

On the extreme cruelty of tribal peoples towards outsiders, Darwin observes that Amerindian women and children joyously participate in the torture of captives and that “common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, ‘Never, never trust an Indian’” (142).
were perpetually at war with one another. “It is no argument against savage man being a social animal, that the tribes inhabiting adjacent districts are almost always at war with each other; for the social instincts never extend to all the individuals of the same species” (132).

Darwin firmly believes that group selection was the mechanism by which many human psychological traits emerged. Group selection means that traits not necessarily beneficial to the individual but rather to the group (such as altruism) spread through competition between groups (for instance: one tribe defeats and exterminates another tribe through its individuals’ superior willingness to sacrifice themselves). The group selection hypothesis is considered controversial today in some evolutionary circles. Darwin for his part wrote:

A community which includes a large number of well-endowed individuals increases in number, and is victorious over other less favoured ones; even although each separate member gains no advantage over the others of the same community . . . [Certain mental] faculties have been chiefly, or even exclusively, gained for the benefit of the community, and the individuals thereof, have at the same time gained an advantage indirectly. (83)

Strikingly, Darwin affirms that humanity was intellectually and even morally improved through such relentless tribal warfare:

[N]atural selection arising from the competition of tribe with tribe . . . together with the inherited effects of habit, would, under favourable conditions, have sufficed to raise man to his present high position in the organic scale. (85)

These [intellectual and moral] faculties are variable; and we have every reason to believe that the variations tend to be inherited. Therefore, if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors, they would have been perfected or advanced through natural selection. Of the high importance of the intellectual faculties there can be no doubt, for man mainly owed to them his predominant position in the world. We can see, that in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who were the best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of offspring. The tribes, which included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in number and supplant other tribes. (153)

When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. Let it be born in mind how all-important in the never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. . . . Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time it would, judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some other tribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and moral qualities would slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world. (155)

Darwin also argued that humans had an in-born proclivity for other pro-social behaviors, such as language and religiosity.[4]Darwin writes:

There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. . . . If, however, we include under the term ‘religion’ the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is wholly different; for this belief seems to be universal with the less civilised races. Nor is it difficult to comprehend how it arose. As soon as the important faculties of the imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally crave to understand what was passing around him, and would have vaguely speculated on his own existence. . . . The feeling of religious devotion is a highly complex one, consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other elements. No being could experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least a moderately high level. (116–18)

Darwin argues that fear of God encourages, but is not necessary for, moral behavior.

Adaptive Traditional Culture

Mankind’s specificity is also in being both a genetic and profoundly cultural being. Our individual and collective behavior are powerfully influenced by both our genetic inheritance and our particular, highly-fungible cultural norms and practices. We would expect the tribes with both a genetic propensity and a culture favoring group-solidarity and organization to overcome less well-endowed tribes.

[A]n increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. (157)

Indeed, Darwin sees traditional cultures in general as prescribing, in a very rough-and-ready way, particular norms and behavior on the individual which are beneficial to the community as a whole:

The judgment of the community will generally be guided by some rude experience of what is best in the long run for all the members; but this judgment will not rarely err from ignorance and weak powers of reasonings. Hence the strangest customs and superstititons, in complete opposition to the true welfare and happiness of mankind, have become all-powerful throughout the world. (146)

The adaptive nature of traditional culture is notably evident in Herodotus’ encyclopedic overview of the nations of the ancient world: these typically emphasize adherence to local cultures, family formation, filial piety, loyalty to one’s kin and nation against foreigners, and martial prowess and manliness.[5]Guillaume Durocher, “Culture and Nationhood in the World of Herodotus: An Evolutionary Analysis,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 17, no.4, winter 2017–2018. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/07/08/cul...lysis/

Nature’s Communitarian Ethos

Bees commonly exterminate their fellows if this is beneficial to the hive.
Bees commonly exterminate their fellows if this is beneficial to the hive.

Darwin personally adhered to a liberal, high-minded and humane Christian-inspired morality typical of the Victorian middle classes. Yet, he cannot help but observe that nature’s law is extremely cruel, with the proverbial “favored races” often triumphing through a ruthless ethos brutally subordinating the interests of the individual to that of the group. Darwin takes the example of bees, an even more social animal than humans, who when under resource pressure exterminate superfluous individuals:

In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely different objects, so they might have a have sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (122)

Darwin adds in a footnote that primitive human patterns are quite similar: “many or most savages [solve] the problem by female infanticide, polyandry and promiscuous intercourse” (122). (From a strictly evolutionary point of view, a human community under pressure from other tribes and a poor environment may benefit from fewer females, preferring to dedicate scarce resources to fighting males.)

Darwin’s critics were quite cognizant of the potential threat posed by his theory to liberal and Christian ethics. He writes:

Miss Cobbe, in commenting (‘Darwinism and his Morals’ ‘Theological Review’, April, 1872, pp. 188-191) on the same illustration, says, the principles of social duty would be thus reversed; and by this, I presume, she means that the fulfillment of social duty would tend to the injury of individuals; but she overlooks the fact, which she would doubtless admit, that the instincts of the bee have been acquired for the good of the community. She goes so far as to say that if the theory of ethics advocated in this chapter were ever generally accepted, ‘I cannot but believe that in the hour of their triumph would be sounded the knell of the virtue of mankind!’ It is to be hoped that the belief in the permanence of virtue on this earth is not held by many persons on so weak a tenure. (122-23)

Darwin observes that animal communities are collectivist and hierarchically organized, with different roles according to the nature of each individual, so as to optimize collective well-being and survival. When threatened, bull bison form a ring around the herd, protecting the young and females in the center (124). Put another way, the herd instinctively and collectively discriminates against males, putting their security at risk, so that the herd as a whole benefits from their superior strength and the sacrifice of their reduced reproductive value (sperm is far more easily replaced than ovaries).

Darwin adds that both herd animals and human tribes exterminate weaker members to promote the survival of the group:

[Animals] will expel a wounded animal from their herd, or gore or worry it to death. This is almost the blackest fact in natural history, unless, indeed, the explanation which has been suggested is true, that their instinct or reason leads them to expel an injured companion, lest beasts of prey, including man, should be tempted to follow the troop. In this case their conduct is not much worse than that of the North American Indians, who leave their feeble comrades to perish on the plains; or the Fijians, who, when their parents get old, or fall ill, bury them alive. (125)

Darwin concludes: “actions are regarded by savages, and were probably so regarded by primeval man, as good or bad, solely as they obviously affect the welfare of the tribe — not that of the species, nor that of an individual member of the tribe” (143).

Darwin claims that the “low morality of savages” is due to the limitation of sympathy to their own tribe and their inability to reason through the negative consequences of their behavior. He does not indiscriminately endorse such savage practices. His position is ambiguous, typical for evolutionary liberals, at once lamenting the cruelty and welcoming the evolutionary consequences of the brutal struggle of the survival of the fittest:

It is impossible not to regret bitterly, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected during primeval times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to his present rank. (168)

Today, even seven decades after World War II, in the background of all this looms the legacy of Adolf Hitler. Evolutionary and hereditary principles were widely accepted in the early twentieth century. In that intellectual and cultural context, Hitler transformed his nation politically and culturally, believing that a zealous, communitarian, warlike, expansionary, racial, and ethno-nationalist ethos would enable Germany’s salvation and the biological and spiritual improvement of mankind. Hitler believed his leadership and politics adhered closely to what he called “the law of life.”[6]On which see Israeli historian Yuval Harari’s fairly balanced appraisal of Hitler: Guillaume Durocher, “Towards a Global Biopolitics?: Review of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankindby Yuval Noah Harari,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 1, Spring 2018. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/12/29/tow...piens/ It is indeed an uncomfortable fact for many evolutionists that many of passages in Mein Kampf are eerily reminiscent of Darwin’s own account of human history, in particular the emergence of morality through eons of tribal warfare.

In the end, Darwin seems to endorse a communitarian ethic moderated and informed by reason (my emphasis):

In the case of the lower animals it seems much more appropriate to speak of their social instincts, as having been developed for the general good rather than for the general happiness of the species. The term, general good, may be defined as the rearing of the greatest number of individuals in full vigour and health, with all their faculties perfect, under the conditions to which they are subjected. As the social instincts both of man and the lower animals have no doubt been developed by nearly the same steps, it would be advisable to take as the standard of morality, the general good or welfare of the community, rather than the general happiness; but this definition would perhaps require some limitation account of political ethics. (145)

This argument appears to be a critique of English philosopher J. S. Mill’s argument for ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’ as the yardstick of morality. Instead, Darwin is advocating something remarkably close to the ancient principles of political philosophy, as notably expounded by Aristotle (whose background as a biologist actually informed his politics): the organization of society so as to enable the community’s collective flourishing, with individual roles and social goals appropriate according to the individual’s and the species’ particular biological nature (in the case of man, that of a rational social animal).

Personally, I believe the ancient republican principles are overwhelmingly superior to the modern and would endorse an Aristotelian-Darwinian political philosophy as particularly appropriate to our scientific age.

The ideas of Locke and Rousseau — extolling equality, rights, and the popular will as ends-in-themselves — have led to perpetual confusion among our people and to our inexorable collapse since the beginning the twentieth century. In 1914, we essentially dominated the world and made up a third of human population. Before 2100, a blink of an eye in historical let alone evolutionary terms, we will have lost control not only of our colonial empires but even of our own homelands, being reduced to minorities in not only North America but even Western Europe. We will make up less than 5 percent of the global population. The triumph of liberal-democracy’s individualist and egalitarian principles have coincided with Europeans’ evolutionary suicide.

On the Human Races

According to Darwin, human races have emerged as a natural consequence of their spreading across the globe, leading to their separate evolution in relative reproductive isolation. As a result of their prolonged separation in different environmental and socio-cultural conditions, humans show differences on a variety of traits; these differences were also shaped through the constant culling of individuals and societies in perpetual tribal warfare. It follows that races are expected to differ. Darwin took the heredity of mental traits and mental differences between races as inseparably entailing one another: “Except through the principle of the transmission of moral tendencies, we cannot understand the differences believed to exist in this respect between the various races of mankind” (148).

In The Descent of Man, Darwin is primarily dedicated to proving that human beings are descended from lower, animal forms of life: “It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion” (43). Darwin is only quite secondarily interested in discussing the differences between human races. He nonetheless endorsed the racial science of his day, observing that “the differences between the several races” was “an enormous subject which has been fully discussed in many valuable works” (18).

Darwin takes for granted the existence of physical and psychological differences between both men and women and between human races: “Man differs from woman in size, bodily strength, hairiness, &c., as well as in mind, in the same manner as do the two sexes of many mammals” (25). Darwin lists numerous areas in which human races differ. The “civilised races” have an inferior sense of smell, inferior eyesight, and smaller wisdom teeth than do “dark races” and “savages” (35, 37, 52). Human races differ in the presence of earlobes (32), hairiness (36), skull length (44), and prognathism (58).

There is . . . no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other, — as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.[7]On all this, Darwin and other early evolutionary/racial scientists were ahead of the curve. See for instance the innumerable genetically-determined human adaptations to local environments that have been identified ( https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Local-human-adap...252816 ) or the striking correlation between “the shape of the cerebral cortex — the brain’s outer layer of neural tissue — and genetic ancestry” ( https://www.labnews.co.uk/news/brain-shape-genetic-a...-2015/ ). The science indicates that race is ‘only’ cerebral-cortex-deep! But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitutions, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans, who live under these same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea. (196)

Darwin praises “the old Greeks” in particular as an exceptionally gifted people “which stood some grades higher in intellect than any race that has ever existed” (166).

Darwin’s discussion is not dedicated to whether the human races exist or differ, but whether they ought to be classified as separate species (as many biologists had done) or merely as separate “sub-species.” In the end, he opts for the latter, observing that while human races differ physically and psychologically on average, they can interbreed freely and possess undeniable similarities (204, 210). While “American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named,” he was also struck by the similarity of their psychological and emotional systems (207).

Interestingly, Darwin easily dismisses one of the most common arguments against the existence of the races: that there is no obvious or universally accepted system of classification. In fact, clinal (that is to say, gradual) variation of sub-species as one moves along a geographical space is one of the most common phenomena in biology. Darwin says that the lack of a uniform system of classification “does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other” (203). “We might as well attempt without any definition to decide whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, town, or city” (205). We could also ask: When does a ‘dialect’ merit being called a distinct ‘language’? Where do we place the border between ‘yellow’ and ‘orange’? Indeed, one of the more embarrassing open secrets of biology is the lack of a decent definition of “species” whenever differing but interbreeding populations are not clearly geographically separated.

Human racial and genetic diversity can then be understood as a kind of spectrum, with gradual variation marked by ethno-genetic clumping (corresponding to particular nations or other endogamous groups, such as Jews or Hindu castes), with marked breaks generally only appearing with clear geographical barriers halting gene flow over prolonged periods (most obviously: large expanses of water). Hence, Darwin quotes the observation that Australian Aborigines are “probably as pure and homogeneous in blood, customs, and language as any [race] in existence” (44).

The Extinction of Human Races and Dysgenics

Truganini, the last of her kind, or as Wikipedia puts it: “a woman widely considered to have been
the last full-blooded Aboriginal Tasmanian.”
Truganini, the last of her kind, or as Wikipedia puts it: “a woman widely considered to have been
the last full-blooded Aboriginal Tasmanian.”

Extinction of lineages a reality of nature. For humans, “Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race” (211). If, in prehistoric times, this selection occurred primarily through tribal warfare, Darwin affirms that this selection is continuing. In the nineteenth century, Western civilization was still animated by a spirit of material and scientific conquest. As a result, the White race was conquering the world and spreading over vast continents in the Americas, Australia, and even Africa. In that context, Darwin believed human evolution would continue, including through the extermination of ‘lower’ races. The following quote, Darwin considers Whites to be at the apex of human evolution (with room for improvement), with Africans and Australian aborigines as the least civilized:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, as some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian[8]Elsewhere, Darwin observes that an Aboriginal Australian wife can scarcely even “exert her self-consciousness” (105). and the gorilla. (183-4)

Darwin urges us to understand the inexorable tendency towards the extinction of certain races as an inevitable consequence of even slight fertility differentials:

Though the difficulty is great to our imagination, and really great, if we wish to ascertain the precise causes and their manner of action, it ought not to be so to our reason, as long as we keep steadily in mind that the increase of each species and each race is constantly checked in various ways; so that if any new check, even a slight one, be superadded, the race will surely decrease in number; and decreasing numbers will sooner or later lead to extinction; the end, in most cases, being promptly determined by the inroads of conquering tribes. (222)

Darwin expected the White race to continue expanding and surmised — given the decline and extermination of many tribal peoples in the Americas and Australia — that the future would not belong to primitive peoples. However, if confronted with today’s reality of low White fertility and other races colonizing White homelands, he would doubtless be on the side of those predicting the extinction of the White race in the long run.

Despite his general view on the importance of racial/ethnic warfare, Darwin observed that civilizations often adopt customs and ethics which tend to check the struggle for life and its cruel savagery. He noticed that overpopulated agricultural civilizations tended to adopt universalist ethics, late marriage, and monasticism (a dysgenic tendency, he noted, insofar as monastic orders attracted intellectuals). Darwin was furthermore already concerned with the dysgenic consequences of mass security enabled by modern civilization:

[T]he weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (159)

Darwin praised the Greeks for making the same observations 2,500 years ago:

It was a well recognised principle among the Greeks, that men ought to select their wives with a view to the health and vigour of their children. The Grecian poet, Theognis, who lived around 550 BC, clearly saw how important selection, if carefully applied, would be for the improvement of mankind. He saw, likewise, that wealth often checks the proper action of sexual selection. (47)

Indeed, Darwin hypothesized that the Greeks collapsed due to political divisions and decadence:

The Greeks may have retrograded from a want of coherence between the many small states, from the small size of their whole country, from the practice of slavery, or from extreme sensuality; for they did not succumb until ‘they were enervated and corrupt to the very core’. The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people (167).

Darwin conceded that explaining the rise of civilizations, and in particular the modern West, was extremely difficult: “The awakening of the nations of Europe from the dark ages is a still more perplexing problem” (167).[9]Darwin stresses the critical role of culture in the rise of modern civilization:

With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. . . . The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth, whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. (169)

He however also stresses that civilization and advanced morals also depend on prerequisite in-born intelligence and sympathetic instincts. Genes and culture are multipliers and are not mutually-exclusive explanations.
He hypothesizes that American greatness may well have been due to biological selection:

The remarkable success of the English as colonists, compared to other European nations, has been ascribed to their ‘daring and persistent energy’; a result which is well illustrated by comparing the progress of the Canadians of English and French extraction; but who can say how the English gained their energy? There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection; for the more energetic, restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and have there succeeded best . . . Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations. (167-8).

In any event, Darwin had no doubt that dysgenic breeding could destroy civilizations:

[If] the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society [increase] at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more quickly, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence. (166)

Darwin could not foresee that a collapse in traditional culture, an individualist-egalitarian ethos, addiction to comfort, and unreciprocated universal sympathy would, within a few generations, lead to a stunning downward reversal for the European race. He writes at length on the collapsed fertility of traditional tribal peoples due to rapidly-changed conditions of life and demoralization (213–22). He observes that “The reproductive system can be shewn to be susceptible to an extraordinary degree (though why we know not) to changed conditions of life” (219). No doubt such factors have led to a collapse in fertility across the developed world and notably in historically White countries.

Social Shaming and Truth-Telling

Darwin was often mocked for his controversial theories.
Darwin was often mocked for his controversial theories.

Darwin dedicates considerable space to social shaming and ostracism, fundamental traits of human life as social animals. In addition to the obvious importance of the social instincts for human societies, perhaps Darwin was also motivated to write because of his own experiences as a scientist whose discoveries led to him being attacked by creationists profoundly offended by the thought that man might descend from apes and fishes.

Obviously, human beings with an instinct to conformism — being highly responsive to the behavior and judgment of the majority of their peers — would tend to outlive unpopular eccentrics. Man’s natural sympathy for his fellows means that he is “influenced in the highest degree by the wishes, approbation, and blame of his fellow-men” (133). Darwin writes:

Even when we are quite alone, how often do we think with pleasure or pain of what others think of us — of their imagined approbation or disapprobation; and this all follows from sympathy, a fundamental element of the social instincts. A man who possessed no trace of such instincts would be an unnatural monster. (136)

This makes it especially difficult for individuals to express unpopular opinions, even when such opinions might be true. A certain amount of discomfort, to not say worse, is inevitable: “in order to be quite free from self-reproach, or at least of anxiety, it is almost necessary for him to avoid the disapprobation, whether reasonable or not, of his fellow-men” (140). All this will have been experienced, to varying degrees, by all European identitarians and race-realists in the West today.

We have other psychological resources in our struggle against popular prejudice. Through conscious habit, we can acquire positive reflexes making us less sensitive to social pressure and yet more sociable (135). Darwin also refers to “the Law of Honour, that is, the law of the opinion of our equals and not of all our countrymen” (146). We can to a great extent determine who is in our peer group. We can seek to associate with and live up to the expectations of those fighting for scientific truth concerning race and for European survival. Every man worthy of the name is imbued with such virtues: “As during rude times no man can be useful or faithful to his tribe without courage, this quality has universally been placed in the highest rank” (142).

In taking courage to combat the conventional wisdom of our time, moral and intellectual confidence in the foundations of our thinking is paramount. And for that, Charles Darwin, the founder modern evolutionary theory, remains irreplaceable.

Notes

[1] Indeed, Darwin approvingly refers to the Roman philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius in places (121, 148). He also, like many philosophers, considers familial affection to be the foundation for social affection (129).

[2] Darwin acknowledges that humans had never so subjugated another human population as to carefully breed them as we do domestic animals (although, we might observe, human reproductive patterns have been profoundly influenced by very varied power asymmetries and socio-cultural norms). He notes however the existence of infanticidal eugenics in ancient Sparta and that Frederick William I of Prussia had created a regiment of tall grenadiers on whom “it is asserted that many tall men were reared in the villages inhabited by the grenadiers and their tall wives” (47).

[3] We recall the recent case of the Asian-American missionary John Allen Chau who visited the indigenous tribesmen of North Sentinel Island in order to convert them to Christianity and was promptly massacred by them. Between 1970 and 2005, tribal peoples killed about 120 workers of Brazil’s National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), mostly in episodes of first contact.

On the extreme cruelty of tribal peoples towards outsiders, Darwin observes that Amerindian women and children joyously participate in the torture of captives and that “common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, ‘Never, never trust an Indian’” (142).

[4] Darwin writes:

There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. . . . If, however, we include under the term ‘religion’ the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is wholly different; for this belief seems to be universal with the less civilised races. Nor is it difficult to comprehend how it arose. As soon as the important faculties of the imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally crave to understand what was passing around him, and would have vaguely speculated on his own existence. . . . The feeling of religious devotion is a highly complex one, consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other elements. No being could experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least a moderately high level. (116–18)

Darwin argues that fear of God encourages, but is not necessary for, moral behavior.

[5] Guillaume Durocher, “Culture and Nationhood in the World of Herodotus: An Evolutionary Analysis,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 17, no.4, winter 2017–2018. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/07/08/culture-and-nationhood-in-the-world-of-herodotus-an-evolutionary-analysis/

[6] On which see Israeli historian Yuval Harari’s fairly balanced appraisal of Hitler: Guillaume Durocher, “Towards a Global Biopolitics?: Review of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankindby Yuval Noah Harari,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 1, Spring 2018. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/12/29/towards-a-global-biopolitics-a-review-of-yuval-hararis-sapiens/

[7] On all this, Darwin and other early evolutionary/racial scientists were ahead of the curve. See for instance the innumerable genetically-determined human adaptations to local environments that have been identified ( https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Local-human-adaptations-Following-Fan-et-al-2016-each-adaptation-is-labeled-by-the_fig2_321252816 ) or the striking correlation between “the shape of the cerebral cortex — the brain’s outer layer of neural tissue — and genetic ancestry” ( https://www.labnews.co.uk/news/brain-shape-genetic-ancestry-linked-10-08-2015/ ). The science indicates that race is ‘only’ cerebral-cortex-deep!

[8] Elsewhere, Darwin observes that an Aboriginal Australian wife can scarcely even “exert her self-consciousness” (105).

[9] Darwin stresses the critical role of culture in the rise of modern civilization:

With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. . . . The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth, whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. (169)

He however also stresses that civilization and advanced morals also depend on prerequisite in-born intelligence and sympathetic instincts. Genes and culture are multipliers and are not mutually-exclusive explanations.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Strange to see that this essay has been up for five days now without yet garnering a single comment. This ought to be catnip to Unzitarians of the HBD confession, but nobody has dropped by to say a word. Perhaps the reality of seeing their cherished beliefs set forth in full clarity, and thus enabling them to take in at one glance the intrinsic insufficiency thereof, has dampened their desire for any frank discussion lest the magic circle be broken and the enlivening spirit drain away.

    For it is apparent, and has been for many years, that the rather vocal Darwinians such as those who populate this website understand nothing about Darwin. They pay him a sort of grandfatherly homage, they advert to him as a shibboleth, but they do not read him and they certainly do not comprehend him. Any thoughtful reading of the Origin of Species would conduce to the conclusion that Darwin’s actual theories were quite different than that which is preached under his name today. And while both versions are incorrect, original Darwinism is at least a philosophy (of sorts) that can be handled by the techniques of reason and criticism, while today’s Darwinistic Dufflepuds propound naught but an incoherent spectacle of catchwords and post hoc rationalizations that their master’s generation would have been ashamed to include under the rubric of science.

    Darwin’s nominal disciples have long since abandoned him for the golden calf of DNA, which they have imbued with every possible power, faculty, and meaning. The folly of this approach will, I trust, be sufficiently clear to the thinking man of today, and will in any case be made apparent to all and sundry in due course of time. Meanwhile, the formless state of these beliefs gives the lie to statements such as this:

    virtually everyone accepts the scientific theory of Charles Darwin concerning the emergence and evolution of the various species in the world,

    Notwithstanding the Dawinistic heading, what has actually been accepted amounts to little more than a doughy mass of vague materialism sprinkled with occasional shavings of biomolecular gobbledygook, and this only by the half-educated urban bourgeoisie. The wider world cares nothing for such “scientific” [sic] theories, while truly profound men have always been moved to a quite different conclusion as exemplified by Aristotle himself, viz. the epistemological permanence of the world and the inalterability of the major taxa.

    Since Darwinism is false in its very beginnings and cannot adequately answer even to rather general matters of life history, it is then the height of absurdity to attempt to apply it to the tense and concrete sociopolitical problems of the present moment. But the devotees of human biodiversity, certain of their beloved “science,” draw precisely the opposite lesson. For them it is HBD which is axiomatic. It is not that HBD is true because Darwinism has shown it to be so on other and unimpeachable grounds, but Darwinism that is true because it agrees with muh HBD! How such an involved and illogical belief could have taken hold among the soi-disant high IQ set is a genuine curiosity.

    The passing away of this superficial system will allow for at least the possibility of effective political action regarding questions of race and immigration. The HBD hermeneutic is a scientistic way of dissembling upon the problem by talking about it as if it were something else.

  2. Sean says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    If AlphaZero could build a chess game that was unbeatable, then natural selection could build the natural world.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  3. Sean says:

    Darwin also refers to “the Law of Honour, that is, the law of the opinion of our equals and not of all our countrymen”

    Very true. Egalitarian culture is of the elite, and those who think of themselves as being a cut above the common run of the country.

    The concept of class war and class enemy is out of fashion, but a lot of immigration policy seems to be a move in a campaign against the working ethnic majority that is the ruling class’s only real enemy.

    • Agree: Alfred, Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  4. @Sean

    If AlphaZero could build a chess game that was unbeatable, then natural selection could build the natural world.

    Bingo! That’s another great example of the sort of tail-wagging-the-dog reasoning beloved of the HBD crowd.

    Oh, wait. You were serious?

    Imagine the absurdity of explaining the whole natural history of the biosphere in terms of a chess playing algorithm.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    , @Sean
  5. MEH 0910 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Darwin’s nominal disciples have long since abandoned him for the golden calf of DNA, which they have imbued with every possible power, faculty, and meaning.

    Darwin today would have embraced DNA, as particulate inheritance solved the problems he saw in blending inheritance.

    Razib Khan: Why the future won’t be genetically homogeneous

    Almost immediately Fisher aims at one of the major conundrums of 19th century theory of Darwinian evolution: how was variation maintained? The logic and conclusions strike you like a hammer. Charles Darwin and most of his contemporaries held to a blending model of inheritance, where offspring reflect a synthesis of their parental values. As it happens this aligns well with human intuition. Across their traits offspring are a synthesis of their parents. But blending presents a major problem for Darwin’s theory of adaptation via natural selection, because it erodes the variation which is the raw material upon which selection must act. It is a famously peculiar fact that the abstraction of the gene was formulated over 50 years before the concrete physical embodiment of the gene, DNA, was ascertained with any confidence. In the first chapter of The Genetical Theory R. A. Fisher suggests that the logical reality of persistent copious heritable variation all around us should have forced scholars to the inference that inheritance proceeded via particulate and discrete means, as these processes do not diminish variation indefinitely in the manner which is entailed by blending.

  6. apollonian says: • Website

    Spenglerian “Decline Of West” Is Not Necessarily “Suicide,” Merely Down-Trend

    Durocher observes, above:

    “In 1914, we [presumably whites] essentially dominated the world and made up a third of human population. Before 2100, a blink of an eye in historical let alone evolutionary terms, we will have lost control not only of our colonial empires but even of our own homelands, being reduced to minorities in not only North America but even Western Europe. We will make up less than 5 percent of the global population. The triumph of liberal-democracy’s individualist and egalitarian principles have coincided with Europeans’ evolutionary suicide.”

    Well, the SEEMING “suicide” of whites is surely because Durocher’s “…liberal-democracy’s individualist and egalitarian principles” is just really euphemism for SATANISM (extreme subjectivism, making oneself to be God, creator of reality), a mish-mash of irrationalist, anti-human, and false moralism, as fm such as Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, a couple of nut-cases who yet captured the imagination of a lot of (over-populated morons and fools) people who destroyed themselves–who needed destruction too, I submit–for their “moral” ideas are LITERALLY suicidal, Kant’s “duty,” and Marx’s crass altruism, “to each according to need, fm each according to ability”–PERFECTLY designed for the death of the host/subject.

    Thus Oswald Spengler is well vindicated for his magnificent exposition of CYCLIC “Decline of the West,” whence the founder generations are highly commendable, heroic, victorious, and productive, BUT allowing for and leading then to an OVER-population of masses of inferiors and weaklings of the inheritor generations–as in the Roman and American examples–who didn’t have to work so hard or fight as much, become corrupt and perverse in their HUBRIS, bringing-in the Jews, for another example, the Jews then taking-over, and now we have to facing present-day Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE.

    So observe the original OBJECTIVE-orientation, philosophically, of the founders is REVERSED in the inheritors’ subjectivism, especially in way of moralism, pretending to (non-existent) “good-evil” and (non-existent) “free” will–rather than the more pronounced determinism (absolute cause-effect, NO perfectly “free” will) of the founders. Thus we have presently the total hegemony of the ultra-subjectivist Jews, featuring their filthy Talmudic “midrash” (interpretation) and “Oral Law Tradition.”

    The Jews then aren’t the first cause of things–the cause is simply the natural, CYCLIC corruption and HUBRIS, as of the inheritor generations who thereupon bring-in Jews, making Jews the arbiters, the Jews soon totally taking-over an already corrupt culture/society–it’s where we are now in the CYCLIC process of things historic and sociologic.

    And specifically we see the take-over of the Jews in the central-banking system (see Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine), the gentiles beginning and starting the fiat-currency schemes, but too conflicted to be successful, the Jews then taking-over such criminal-enterprise (literally legalized counterfeiting), the gentile people not grasping such fraudulence, being tooo stupid and over-populated, falling over one another, the Jews far more COLLECTIVISTICALLY-oriented, “thick as thieves,” far more successful in “group-think,” dedication, commitment, and especially organization.

    So in conclusion: I submit the present corruption and catastrophe, as in the central-bank corruption, is only partially a “suicide”–ACTUALLY it is a necessary CULLING-OUT of the over-populated inferiors and weaklings–a distinct down-trend, without a doubt–but not at all a complete “suicide” for ALL the members.

  7. apollonian says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Good Golly, Miss Molly, But We’re Zorched By A Zarch Here, Eh?–Ho Ho Ho

    “Intelligent”?–ho ho ho ho–that’s thy moniker?–seriously?–ho o hoh oho. Do thou begin to realize how putridly presumptuous–even outrightly SCHIZOID–thou really are, buddy? Thou say, “Perhaps the reality of seeing their cherished beliefs set forth in full clarity, and thus enabling them to take in at one glance the intrinsic insufficiency….”

    Newsflash, sucker: Durocher is almost as bad a writer as thou, and sorry, but perhaps thou could tell us what is given in “full clarity.”

    “[I]ntrinsic insufficiency,” thou presumptuous schizoid?–of what, exactly?–could thou say?–no?–I didn’t think so.

    “[U]nderstand nothing about Darwin.”?–but didn’t he indicate presumptuous, fatuous weaklings/inferiors like thou would “fall by the wayside”?–or was that Spencer?–regardless, seems true enough to me–thou art excellent example/instance.

    “Darwin’s actual theories were quite different than that which is preached under his name today.”

    Oh?–is that so?–so then, WHAT was Darwin’s “theory,” and HOW/WHY is it actually “quite diff.”?–tell us, oh sage of presumption, pretension, and fatuity, ho ho ho ho. Are thou missing a massive “leg” to “standing upon”?–ho oho ho ho ho

    “[T]houghtful reading of the Origin of Species…”?–but WHAT do thou actually KNOW about “thoughtful,” presumptuous one, who can’t ever actually say anything of any substance?

    Then thou tells us,

    “And while both versions are incorrect, original Darwinism is at least a philosophy (of sorts) that can be handled by the techniques of reason and criticism, while today’s Darwinistic Dufflepuds propound naught but an incoherent spectacle of catchwords and post hoc rationalizations that their master’s generation would have been ashamed to include under the rubric of science.”

    But we notice thou actually say NOTHING–for WHY are “both versions” “incorrect,” sucker–how?–why? “Rubric of science”?–so WHAT do thou actually KNOW about science, Mr. know-it-all?–tell us, ho ho ho ho

    “Notwithstanding the Dawinistic heading, what has actually been accepted amounts to little more than a doughy mass of vague materialism sprinkled with occasional shavings of biomolecular gobbledygook, and this only by the half-educated urban bourgeoisie.”

    What?–“half-educated urban bourgeoisie”?–takes one to know one, eh? And “gobbledygook,” thou say?–ho ho ho ho–don’t thou realize thy entire presumptuous mass of moronic assertions-without-any-substantiation at all, whatsoever, which constitutes the entirety of thy posting here, is most PERFECT example of such “gobbledygook”?–ho ho ho ho ho

    So, I think I’ve analyzed quite enough of thy idiot nonsense, buddy, all the rest of thy posting is essentially the same sort of presumptuous crap–WHO do thou think thou art kidding, sucker?–ho ho ho ho oho

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  8. Lin says:

    The human species we know of will inevitably be displaced by new species, depends on how soon.
    Lets compare human with, say, wild cats:
    1)Both female and male cats hunt. Usually only human males hunt or do heavy labors like farming.
    Gender muscle strength difference is more pronounced in human than other animals.
    2)Human pregnancy term on average longer than other animals of similar weight and average human litter size is only slightly more than 1; ie human females are less physically active.
    ………..
    That means human gender difference in terms of genes and biochemistry have evolved to be more pronounced than other animals.
    Now the advent of steam engines,internal combustion engines,mechanization and lately robotics is reversing that trend(ever wonder why males in more ‘primitive’ societies tend to be more male chauvinistic?)
    That means in more ‘advanced’ societies, females have more tendency to become radfems and males will become more effeminate. Homosapiens will eventually evolve into a hermaphrodite or truly ‘homo’sapien species (like the Dune Jadacha hermaphrodites)or even into cyborgized species

  9. Sean says:

    Going by Darwin’s second book, he thought a race arises where there is a certain focus of sexual selection. In the case of Europeans he clearly suggests that the focus was on women, noting that European women were considered extremely attractive by men of all races. Darwin said the standards of female beauty are universal and when white travelers in Darkest Africa and local tribesmen were in complete agreement about which women (African or European) were the best looking.

    Psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa got hauled over the coals in 2011 when he said that black women, when rated objectively, were less physically attractive that European women. It is often forgotten that he also said that black men were more physically attractive than European men.

    Where women do not have to worry about having a man around (as in a welfare state) they tend to go for the testosterone crazed bad boy types a la sexy son. Eric Zemour bemoaned the French proletariat’s helplessness before the ‘ostentatious virility’ of their black and Arab competitors seducing numerous young white women.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  10. Anon 2 says:

    A theory, by definition, represents the highest level of achievement in science. For example, in physics Classical Mechanics, Electromagnetic Theory, Quantum Mechanics, and Theory of Relativity fully deserve to be referred to by that name. E.g., Classical Mechanics provides an excellent approximation in our description of low speed motion of macroscopically sized bodies. However, the so-called Theory of Evolution is nowhere close to that level of precision. That’s why I always refer to it as the Neo-Darwinist Model, and never a theory. Neo-Darwinism provides a rough approximation to how the process of evolution actually happens, better in the area of microevolution than macroevolution, still with many unexplained anomalies and unanswered questions. However, biologists, unlike physicists or astronomers, seem very uncomfortable with the idea that even the best theories or models are mere approximations to the truth. If you want absolute truth, you will not find it in science (or anywhere else). Science is all about approximations, and all nontrivial scientific statements are never simply true or false but rather represent different levels of probability, “A is v. likely to be true,” “A is likely to be true,” etc. In my experience evolutionary biologists could use a little more humility – lowly beings that we are, we have very little access to the truth at this stage of our evolution.

  11. Anon 2 says:

    Let me get more specific. There is no question that Darwin was not completely wrong when he postulated that we are a product of evolution – in many ways we are basically smart chimps. The horrors of human history demonstrate that humanity has had a very hard time rising above the level of our fellow primates: particularly under stress we tend to be selfish (i.e., pursuing self-interest), tribal, aggressive, revengeful, lustful, territorial, and status-seeking (i.e., obsessed with who is superior and who is inferior). Aggression, specifically, both verbal and physical, seems perfectly normal, at least at this stage of our evolution. Aristotle certainly thought so. He famously said that anger was perfectly acceptable but in his virtue ethics, based on the principle of moderation, the tricky part was to know when to get angry, with whom, to what degree, etc. By his account most humans are not virtuous not because they get angry but because they are not able to express their anger with a high degree of precision.

    Let me get even more specific, and apply all this to the interaction between the Germanics and the Slavs. A crucial fact about Europe which is exceedingly rarely noted is that there are 240 million Slavs and only 120 million Germanics (incl. 20 million Scandinavians). The same 2:1 ratio was probably roughly true 1000 years ago. And yet Germany, the eternal bully of Europe, has tried to impose its will on the Slavs for at least 1200 years, knowing perfectly well it could not win this battle if only because of the enormous disparity in the numbers. Hitler’s was the last desperate attempt to impose the German will on the Slavs, and of course it ended not only in defeat, but also German humiliation, just like it ended in defeat and humiliation during World War I – by 1945 Germany lost much of its territory and millions of lives. What do Germanics have to show for 1200 years of history with their vaunted emphasis on science, technology, and efficiency? The Scandinavians are confined to perhaps the worst piece of real estate in Europe, Europe’s equivalent of Alaska – Stockholm’s latitude is close to that of Anchorage. Germany is still occupied, has been reduced to a small country, and is losing 200 – 250 000 ethnic Germans a year. Nothing to write home about. The Slavs, on the other hand, have a huge population, and occupy an enormous territory from the Oder river to Vladivostok on the Pacific. Meanwhile, the German ideal of science, technology, and warfare, although widely imitated (e.g., by U.S., Japan, and others) is losing popularity. There is growing disillusionment with science and technology for many reasons, including environmental degradation, massive extinction of species, falling fertility rates, decreasing life expectancy in the U.S. (despite enormous sums spent on medical research), etc. Sabine Hossenfelder, German physicist, recently suggested that 90% of the world’s 40 000 particle physicists should be fired because they don’t contribute anything to human welfare. That kind of proposal would have been unthinkable even 50 years ago.

    I posit that one reason why the Germanics met such an ignominious fate is because they didn’t understand that even though aggression is perfectly normal, following Aristotle they have shown extreme and unwarranted levels of aggression, and achieved the opposite of their goal – they were roundly defeated and humiliated, the fate that eventually befalls all bullies. A more disturbing conclusion is that because science and technology weaponize aggression to stratospheric levels, there is now a whole climate of suspicion around science and technology that didn’t exist 150 years ago when people were still starry eyed about science as capable of solving all our problems.

    • Disagree: apollonian
    • Replies: @apollonian
  12. Anon 2 says:

    One more comment about the so-called “theory” of evolution (which should really be known as the Neo-Darwinist Model). One way to stump an evolutionary biologist is to ask him, “To how many significant figures has the “Theory” of Evolution been confirmed?” This would be a standard question in physics, astronomy, and chemistry. After all, we expect science to be quantitative, and we want to know the level of precision with which something is known. Biologists are completely baffled by such questions, which is one of many reasons why Theory of Evolution doesn’t deserve at this stage to be called a theory. Until the evolutionists start talking about measurement errors, error bars, etc, one will have to conclude that what they are doing now is still at a rather primitive stage of development. Even your doctor who takes your blood pressure typically has no inkling as to the size of the measurement error for his specific instrument.

    Meanwhile physicists can measure the value of the fine structure constant to 10-11 significant figures. Biologists have a long way to go before they can achieve this level of precision. No wonder we cannot cure cancer. Biomedical sciences are still rather primitive.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  13. Sean says:

    The horrors of human history demonstrate that humanity has had a very hard time rising above the level of our fellow primates: particularly under stress we tend to be selfish (i.e., pursuing self-interest), tribal, aggressive, revengeful, lustful, territorial, and status-seeking (i.e., obsessed with who is superior and who is inferior).

    We are our DNA, which is obsessed with making us obsessed with those things because they function as defaults for emergencies when over-thinking things will get our DNA’s eternal life in a series of human bodies cancelled. Love and altruism are also DNA’s defaults, there to do out thinking for us.

    Aristotle certainly thought so. He famously said that anger was perfectly acceptable but in his virtue ethics, based on the principle of moderation, the tricky part was to know when to get angry, with whom, to what degree, etc. By his account most humans are not virtuous not because they get angry but because they are not able to express their anger with a high degree of precision.

    Aristotle held that teleology ought to be the guide. In other words the main thing in deciding whether something is good is whether using that thing enables one to get what people try to get when they use a thing of that type. By the time you have got angry something has already been done to you, so that is not a great strategy if you can be knocked out of the game. As a single country facing a slew of very powerful enemies, Germany waiting until it was angered was waiting far too long.

    I posit that one reason why the Germanics met such an ignominious fate is because they didn’t understand that even though aggression is perfectly normal, following Aristotle they have shown extreme and unwarranted levels of aggression, and achieved the opposite of their goal – they were roundly defeated and humiliated, the fate that eventually befalls all bullies.

    That is exactly what everyone thought after WW1. But deep down Germany did not think that was the moral, and in fact Germany would have had an excellent chance of total victory if it had attacked in the West during 1905 (when Russia was in chaos and Britain had a tiny army). And in that Germany would have won a 1905 WW1 handily and WW2 would not have happened. So the moral is to be coldly calculating, foresee that current neutrals will turn against you in future, and hold oneself in readiness to attack and destroy an possible future enemy for no further reason, other than them having become suddenly vulnerable.

  14. apollonian says: • Website
    @Anon 2

    Random Lies And Lying On Germans By Psychopath, After A Couple Of Inane Prefaces

    After a couple of sociologic-styled prefaces to lies and lying, “Anon 2” gets to first serious lie:

    “And yet Germany, the eternal bully of Europe, has tried to impose its will on the Slavs for at least 1200 years, knowing perfectly well it could not win this battle if only because of the enormous disparity in the numbers.”

    For obviously, “Germany the eternal bully…,” is plain, moronic lie, and as a collective entity, doesn’t really have a “will” as individuals do. And if one speaks of foreign policy, then it might refer to other “Slavic” nations, but surely not on Slavs as whole. And collective entities also cannot “know perfectly well.” So this is quite idiotic passage. But wait, there’s more.

    “Hitler’s was the last desperate attempt to impose the German will on the Slavs,….”

    And above quote is just more of the Jew-friendly, Jew-serving lying, for note Hitler and Germany were attacked by France, UK, and Poland. Of course, Jews will lie, as always, saying it was Poland which was attacked, but actually Poland was encroaching upon and harassing the German city of Danzig, over which Poles had threatened Germany w. war if Danzig was not given to Poland. These encroachments by Poland are well documented and described in David Hoggan’s “The Forced War.”

    UK, largely a Germanic nation itself, encouraged Polish aggression against Danzig and Germany by means of the offensive alliance of March, 1939. So these idiot lies and lying by “anon 2” really are quite brainless.

    Our dear psychopath concludes his moronic lying about Germany and “Germanics” with,

    “I posit that one reason why the Germanics met such an ignominious fate is . . .they have shown extreme and unwarranted levels of aggression,….”

    But of course, all humans live and die, the Germans no less, and they obviously haven’t shown any more “levels of aggression” than anyone else, as humans are all sinners, and there’s no one better than any others, etc.

    So we see “anon 2” merely enters some rather typical lying and quite pointless idiocy regarding Germans and their heroic leader, Hitler, pretending thus to commenting on sociology, “levels of aggression,” Aristotle, etc.

    • Replies: @cokeefe
  15. JerseyGuy says:

    Guillaume,
    This mostly relates to your previous article but wanted to hear your thoughts. I hang out with a lot of Greeks at my (you guessed it) Greek Orthodox Church. A few recent immigrants but mostly 1st and 2nd generation Americans of Greek descent. There are just so many Greek doctors, lawyers, programmers, nurses, engineers, etc in my parish. The social capital and household income is well above the American white average. Very high functioning people and, again, above the national average. However, I can tell (and they will admit) that there has been a large brain drain to America over the last few generations.

    My question is what can countries like Greece realistically do? How do you really stop a brain drain like this from Greece and Eastern Europe? Tax incentives? Can countries offer tax breaks to high skilled people of certain ethnic backgrounds to repatriate? I really don’t know what’s going to happen to prevent high IQ from going to America or other countries in the New World.

    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
  16. Anon 2 says:

    Re: In 1914 whites made up a third of human population

    True. And now we are down to (optimistically speaking) one seventh (1 billion plus out of 7.7 billion), a global minority (By the way, I think whites should stress their global minority status – we are basically becoming an endangered species and need to be protected).

    I think the ultimate reason is that we are no longer in harmony with our animal nature. We’ve become too civilized, something that Darwin was already aware of, and hence his claim that we are basically smart chimps provided a useful corrective. Historically, the West has gone from excessive aggression (e.g., slave trade, colonialism, etc. As recently as the 1960s, at a World’s Fair in Brussels (?), blacks from Africa were placed in a cage for everyone to gawk at. That was clearly inhumane) to excessive submissiveness (e.g., when Merkel in 2015 invited a million+ migrants to come to Germany without consulting with her EU allies, again demonstrating the bullying behavior that the rest of Europe has always found distasteful). The current preoccupation with toxic masculinity is another example of wanting males to display excessive submissiveness that is clearly out of harmony with our animal nature. As Aristotle said, the precise level of aggression when the situation calls for it, without going to either extreme is perfectly in harmony with our nature as rational animals.

    I believe the situation will improve as the Europeans return to their pagan roots. One reason is that the Abrahamic religions are almost completely out of touch with the natural world. This is now changing. For example, the first temple to Odin in 1000 years was recently completed in Denmark. In Greece people are again beginning to visit the old temples dedicated to the Olympian gods. Granted, not many. However, after the horrors of the 20th century growing numbers of people now feel that excessive faith in science and technology is entirely unwarranted, and feel justified in turning to alternative medicine, eastern religions, and paganism.The gods and goddesses today are, of course, conceived in a much more sophisticated way as the powerful Jungian archetypes within our psyche that can exert synchronistic effects in the outer world, “As within, so without.” Many people believe that this will restore the vitality and the vigor (Pres. Kennedy’s favorite word!) they feel has been depleted in their neurotic urban lives. Paganism in this sense simply means a sense of reconnection with immanent divinity, divinity present in nature, including in us, a useful corrective to Christianity’s overemphasis on transcendent divinity, God out there in the clouds. This is of course nothing new. For example, it is reminiscent of New England Transcendentalism that Emerson was writing about.

  17. Anon 2 says:

    Re: Declining fertility

    Again, perhaps one solution is to go back to our pagan roots, and restore the institution of concubinage, of course upgraded to reflect the current legal conditions. A rich man having one wife and 10-15 concubines could have dozens of children. I’m sure there would be no shortage of volunteers! Multiply this by a thousand, and the effect on the national fertlity could be significant. Either that or convert to Mormonism. I hear the state of Utah is booming

  18. @Sean

    If only they had. Oh dear God, if only they had.

  19. Franz says:
    @Sean

    …But deep down Germany did not think that was the moral, and in fact Germany would have had an excellent chance of total victory if it had attacked in the West during 1905 (when Russia was in chaos and Britain had a tiny army). And in that Germany would have won a 1905 WW1 handily and WW2 would not have happened…

    The trouble there is the software. Jesus made them not do it.

    Or as old Ben Hecht put it, “Germany was Christian for a thousand years”. Even a fraction of that thousand years would have made Germans hesitate as to their existential interests, because the software program of Jesus is, all mockery aside, pretty powerful. They prayed and assumed God is Just, a blunder that runs from the end of the Bonaparte Era to the fizzling days after the Armistice of the Great War.

    Not at all unique. The Tsar helped Lincoln in the 1860s, asked why, the Tsar said “Lincoln was saving the West for Christianity” presumably for ending slavery, the last thing on Lincoln’s mind. That Lincoln was not really a Christian makes it far more tragic.

    Europeans, to paraphrase the great Robert Graves, blew it when they dumped their own Great Deity for a Middle Eastern fairy tale, a tale that let Judea into Europa and made us second class citizens in our own lands. All men must be chosen by the Divine for the Land they call holy. The lads from the Levant made short work of that.

    On the bright side, neopagans are not making a comeback, but they are making the thoughtful do some thinking. Jesus can be re-fitted and made European. Then we’re the Chosen again, our land is holy, and the Middle East can be sent back to where it belongs.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Stan d Mute
  20. @Sean

    They hang the man who steals the goose from the common but they knight the man who steals the common. An old English saying.

  21. AaronB says:

    Selfish and contentious people can not cohere, and without coherence nothing is possible

    And yet today we see the least selfish and contentious people have trouble cohering, while the more selfish and contentious tribes cohere better.

    It would seem that cohering together as a tribe is a sublimated form of selfishness, and that as selfishness declines tribalism declines.

    All the great universalist religions which preach against selfishness also preach against tribalism – correctly recognizing the second to be a sublimated form of the first.

    So selfishness and tribalism are false alternatives – they are expressions of the same impulse on a continuum.

    Mark my words, the more a group has a reputation for producing individuals who are selfish and ambitious, the more too it will be tribal.

    And one of the interesting things about tribes is that the people living in one prey on each other extensively – they may cooperate against outsiders, as selfishness dictates, but they also prey on each other extensively, as selfishness dictates.

    Anyone who has spent time in the currently still existing nationalistic countries, as I have primarily in Asia, will be astonished at the level of predatory activity among members of the same tribe.

  22. Pft says:

    A small percentage known today as the cognitive elite that make up all of the races in various proportions will make a evolutionary jump to Human 2.0 leaving Human 1.0 behind. Keeping some us around as labour and entertainment perhaps. AI, robotics, gene editing, epigenics, etc will facilitate this evolution. Those with an IQ under 130 simply are not suited for the Technocratic world. 6-7 billion will go the way of the neanderthal. Thats the future.

  23. Willem says:

    Stopped reading after a few words. Not sure if this is the argument that the author is making in 6200 words about the human race, which I can summarize in 7 words.

    ‘Race is a social construct; not genetic.’

    This does not mean that there are no genetic differences between blacks, whites, reds, asians, but the differences are really really small.

    True: black atheletes can run 100 meters faster than whites (<0.1 seconds faster that is), and maybe (maybe) Asians are smarter than whites (in terms of few IQ measurements smarter that is). But the differences are tiny.

    The whole debate about the human race comes down to talking about two (or more) Gaussian curves where the one is shifted a few millimeters to the left or right as compared with the other, but where the bulk of these Gaussian curves overlap one another.

    Talking about the human race is like talking about high heels and low heels as 18th century satirist Jonathan Swift did in Gulliver's travels, when discussing the differences in political opinion on the island of Lilliput: political groups in Luliput are distinguished by the shoes they wear and each group thinks the other is totally depraved and unacceptable. Same applies to human race.

    Tat doesn't mean that there are big differences between humans in terms of intelligence, health, and smartness and their colour of skin. But it has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with race, but only with class.

    For those who do not see this or pretend to not see this, I can recommend a great comedy from the 80s, trading places, so that you at least can have a laugh on your own stupidity.

    Here is the trailer:

  24. j2 says:

    Darwin had a too gradualistic view of evolution, also in the case of human races. Life and also humans have passed through genetic bottlenecs and in the case of humans, conscious selection has been applied. Read Zoroastrian texts of the great winter: no defective person was saved to vars (=underground tunnels where humans according to the story survived the winter, presumably Younger Dryas, probably similar to the tunnels in Turkey). It may not be so much gradual improvement by the struggle of life, but for humans conscious selection of desirable features. Like if you want to explain blue eyes, you need not look at a selective advantage in mating for people with blue eyes, not to some superior eyesight, but a conscious selection of a small group of people having this desirable characteristic in a time of a catastrophe when only few could be saved, or selecting a crew to send to settle new lands.

    If so, higher moral values need not be a result of tribal warfare. Believe in God need not be a result of natural selection, but a natural response to a comet burning 1/10 of the earth in 10,800 BC, that is, heavenly creatures got mad at humans, and so on. Darwin tries to explain too much with his theory. Hitler very well understood what Darwin said, and it was false.

    About darwinism in general, read this text from James Thomson, Going to the dogs:
    “Overall, we identified 131 unique SNPs that were significantly associated with at least one of the 14 behavioral traits (Bonferroni p ≤ 0.05, Fig 2). Forty percent of these SNPs (n= 52) were located within a gene – none of which encoded for changes in the amino acid sequence of the protein.”
    No useful mutations in protein coding DNA. This is the problem I see in darwinism as an explanation of the origin of species. Dogs have been bread for quite long. Some claim that only for 8,000 years, but by newer research it looks like 30,000 years. No changes in exons, parts of DNA that code proteins. Thus, all these changes are in introns, parts of DNA that modify the expression of genes, like turn the gene on for a longer or shorter time. Intron mutations can be easily created since even a single mutation can be beneficial. It is much harder to code a new working and different protein-coding section. Yet, there are very many different proteins. Evolution (meaning the observed time process of species developing from other species) has created new exons. They cannot be made by selection, whether natural selection or human breeding, and they are (very) difficult to make with random mutations.

    I think Darwin was wrong both in the origin of species and the origin of human races. Not much can be learned from wrong ideas. Instead, Plato in the end of Timaeus concluded that defective men are reborn as women and even more defective as animals. Do you imply that this fully logical explanation, state of the art in 360 BC, is in some way less true than darwinism? They are both as flawed. Scientists, in Plato’s, Darwin’s and in our time just like to talk without sense.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  25. Anon[625] • Disclaimer says:

    Traits change over time.

    Game over.

  26. May I (tentatively) congratulate you on a neat invention. I had not heard the old English saying so Googled for “they knight the man who steals the common”. Nothing, not even a faint echo from Google’s AI.

    • Replies: @republic
  27. @Anon 2

    You are spouting complete nonsense because what you say belongs only in your mental fantasy world. There have been hiccups in evolutionary science since Darwin such as the failure by some to recognise group selection and maybe kin preferences. But the essential Darwinian revolution remains intact. Instead of creation, living organisms evolved by reason of their suitability for the environmental niche they found themselves in. The less well adapted potential forebears were outbred by the better adapted. That’s it. Unfortunately the Nazis put a stop to sensible people’s attempts to provide a substitute for natural selection after the smartest most productive people began limiting their family sizes while the dim and unproductive did not.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  28. @Sean

    Are there alternative histories that you would recommend with a Great War that started in 1905? I think the Schlieffen Plan wasn’t devised till 1906 which, as it didn’t work in 1914 (failure to keep the right wing strong???) may mean it is irrelevant but does allow the thought that France wasn’t to be invaded. (Can you think how they might have got up a war against France? Indeed why would they want to?). The question then would be what excuse could be found in the East for war. Maybe liberation of oppressed nations? Poland, Lithuania etc. Obviously keeping the British out of it would be important because the buildup of the German navy had only just begun and they wouldn’t have been planning a U boat campaign which might compete in effectiveness with the British blockade. The British might have been bought off with concessions in the ME and relief from Russian threats to India. So…. let’s say Germany encourages Poland and/or Finnland to revolt against the Czar and behaves wrt them and the Czar like the US wrt Libya, Syria etc.

  29. Tom Welsh says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    “Imagine the absurdity of explaining the whole natural history of the biosphere in terms of a chess playing algorithm”.

    Imagine the impossibility of explaining the natural world without frequently resorting to analogy.

  30. I can’t agree that inter-tribal warfare has always been a good thing for our species. Humanity was not improved by the massive conquests of the Altaic peoples, such as the Turks and Mongols. Anatolia would have fared much better had it remained under the control of the Greeks & Byzantines. The Altaics also don’t seem to have been particularly smarter than everyone else. In fact, their success was largely due to one factor – they were able to fire an arrow while mounted on horseback better than anyone else.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  31. Alfred says:

    Darwin’s nominal disciples have long since abandoned him for the golden calf of DNA

    And one of the fathers of the structure of DNA has blasphemed. 🙂

    DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race

    New York laboratory cuts ties with 90-year-old scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA, revoking all titles and honors

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/james-watson-scientist-honors-stripped-reprehensible-race-comments

  32. The problem with discussions of race, and the author himself falls into the trap, is that the discussion is much more about skin colour than race and is therefore totally unscientific.

    • Replies: @Sean
  33. Biff says:
    @Willem

    Using Hollywood to shore up your argument destroys it on every level. One doesn’t even have to refute the details of your nonsequitor on class and race.

    • Replies: @Willem
  34. @Willem

    The “truth” about the insignificance of the differences between human races is not to be found in literary parodies or comedies as you try to sell to us, but in the actual records of their cultural achievements, both in the present and in history. And boy are those differences “insignificant” ! Compare the cultural achievements of Australian Aborigines, Bushmen, Pygmees and Bantus with those of Europeans : hardly any difference ! THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE ! Yeah right.

  35. @Hapalong Cassidy

    I agree. Those who win are not always superior (both racially and culturally). Sometimes inferiors win.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  36. As Lloyd Pye states: Darwin was a blowed up pecker-wood. Perhaps Mark Passio is correct when he says the human race suffers from “cosmic abandonment”

  37. Sean says:
    @Michael Kenny

    But why do blacks and whites look so differentI n his second theory Darwin used sexual selection to explain human races as a diverging from original unity an attempt to further the emancipation of blacks (see Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins). Resistance to giving blacks full rights came not from scientific assertions of black inferiority, but from the rising profits to be made from cotton and the suitability of blacks for working the best land, which was often malarial. However if blacks had a different origin they would have to be accounted a different species even if there were no apparent differences.

    If one analyses intelligence by racial group all scientists know what the result would be,and nothing about that that would surprise people in the field, although no-one in academia actually does look at data that way because it is opposed to the whole meaning and tenor of science since Darwin. Going by Darwin’s second book, he thought a race arises where there is a certain focus of sexual selection. In the case of Europeans he clearly suggests that the focus was on women, noting that European women were considered extremely attractive by men of all races. Darwin said the standards of female beauty are universal and white travelers in Darkest Africa and local tribesmen were in complete agreement about which women (African or European) were the best looking. The question then becomes, if the divergence between subSharan Africans and Europeans was due to sexual selection, how did black women get to look like that. The explanation could be that sexual selection only operates in one direction and it was operating in different ones in Europe (women) and Africa (men).

    Psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa got hauled over the coals in 2011 when he said that black women, when rated objectively, were less physically attractive that European women. It is often forgotten that he also said that black men were more physically attractive than European men. Where women do not have to worry about having a man around (as in a welfare state) they tend to go for the testosterone crazed bad boy types (the sexy son). Hence, as Zemour noted, the ‘ostentatious virility’ of blacks seducing numerous young white women.

  38. @JerseyGuy

    The United States can help this problem by ending all immigration! Of course, that’s not the primary reason we should put a stop to immigration, but it’s another argument in favor of doing so.

  39. DH says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Excellent comment.
    According to Gerd Müller, leading evolutionist, the main unsolved problems of now Darwinism include incapacity to explain:

    1. Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);
    2. Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally
    3. Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  40. republic says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In The Tickler Magazine 1 February 1821

    They hang the man and flog the woman
    Who steals the goose from off the common
    Yet let the greater villain loose
    That steals the common from the goose

    The law doth punish man or woman
    That steals the goose from off the common
    But lets the greater felon loose
    That steals the common from the goose

    The law locks up the hapless felon
    who steals the goose from off the common
    but lets the greater felon loose
    who steals the common from the goose

    The fault is great in man or woman
    Who steals a goose from off a common
    But what can plead that man’s excuse
    Who steals a common from a goose

  41. @Franz

    “Europeans, to paraphrase the great Robert Graves, blew it when they dumped their own Great Deity for a Middle Eastern fairy tale, a tale that let Judea into Europa and made us second class citizens in our own lands”

    Good to see Graves’ truly revolutionary insight brought up here. And he had the intellectual standing to know whereof he spoke.

    We speak of the Jewish dominance of our social sciences since the 1930’s, Boas and his ilk. (((Ernst Cassirer))), less well know but highly regarded for his “Philosophy of Symbolic Forms” also proselytized, spreading the notion that monotheism as embodied in the Mosaic tradition was a more highly evolved intellectual framework than the polytheism of the Nordic and Greek civilizations.

    So, rationalizations and apologetics from top to bottom.

  42. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    To most of the people of the world it is quite clear that Darwin meant two basic things :

    1. Atheism ,

    2. The anglogerman races are superior to any other race on earth ( and thus have the natural right to plunder and eliminate other races )

    Seeing a culture that produces idiots like Darwin it is difficult to believe in evolution , but one is inclined to believe in involution .

    • LOL: atlantis_dweller
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  43. Sean says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The significance of the whole natural history of the biosphere is …. it produced the learning ability of the human brain. AlphaZero does not understand what chess is but after being set to play itself itwent beyond human knowledge about chess. The Grandmasters were reverse engineering its games to see what the intention behind certain heterodox moves was. It is difficult to reverse engineer the brain because billions of neurons doing nothing except decreasing or increasing in individual electrical activity have overlapping purposes. No reason to think it is more than an engineering problem.

  44. @Intelligent Dasein

    The “essay” was hardly visible. I saw the piece on Cioran ere, for instance, and so may have most others.

  45. Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

    .

  46. @republic

    Note how the thieving woman gets preferential treatment to that of the man.
    Some things never change.

    • Replies: @republic
  47. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Nevertheless – how would you go about assigning the mark of superiority and inferiority, except by seeing who/what wins, and is defeated?
    Can you point to another measure?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Anon
  48. Swan Knight says: • Website

    I am a “creationist holdout.” As the article implies, science has become politisized. One will be surprised at how many scientists at least believe in Intelligent Design but are afraid to come out and say it in fear ofbthe consequences of violating group think.

  49. Vidalus says:

    Think Alien colonists will prefer the meaty “taste” of particular races?  Amarkans high fat content might please?  Perhaps they have been breeding us all along for special cuisine agendas? Wonder how the author might be cooked or perhaps he is best gobbled raw? VIDALUS

  50. @AaronB

    Self-boosting and mob-ingratiating platitudes laid aside: every act of ours — with partial exclusion allowed regarding ruth, maybe —is self-centered.
    Selfish/unselfish is a false dichotomy.

    The (genuinely) charitable gives charity because he draws pleasure from it.
    The abnormal one who can’t bring himself to conceal his own mind and deceive his fiancé even that little that it would take for their couple life to be reasonably free of conflict, does so because he draws pleasure from it.

    The nornal ones who (as a study measured) get their couple life running without breakdowns by an average of 8 lies per day, and lull themselves that they lie to “protect the other person’s feelings” do as they do because they draw pleasure from it (the pleasure to not curb their instinct to lie, for one instance).

    The law is universal, and even as to the drawn pleasures there is little variation.

    What about the continuous appeals to the Good of the Community and accusations of “egotism”/”narcissism”/”selfishness”?
    They are rhetorical arms of social climbing and conflict. Alternatively, verbal tools of psychological projection.

    As long as human being-together’s signature feature is struggle, truth will not be allowed a breath either in any social scenario or within the mind of any socially efficacious person.

    Split between conscious and unconscious, opposition between openly stated and agreed rules and goals and actual unstated ones, pride thirst for power vanity, aren’t leaving the stage of human affairs.
    Certainly the “ideas” and “ideals” advocated on the right and the left may seem much in contrast to each other, but it’s still politics, it’s still competing for social standing and power.

    If you wound their vanity and sense of power on the left they will call you names and ostracize you and believe it is because you “hate” Blacks, Jews, Muslims, minorities, women, and so on (and yes, they’ll believe their words).

    If you wound their vanity and sense of power on the right, the word-arrows will bear names such as “depressing”, “community-splitting”, “narcissistic”, Cluster-B disordered, and so on.

    Arrow-words with poison on their tips is all that is. Later in their development, maybe, humans will be apt to something else than struggle, physical and savage or verbal and made of strawmen and projections and professions of selflessness that it be.

    Until then, let’s enjoy the self-repeating act on the stage, those of us who can.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  51. Under the command of the Middle Easterners, the White world that is progressive, scientific and law-abiding, will dissipate into a murky swamp of mediocrity, indifference and lawlessness…

  52. AaronB says:
    @atlantis_dweller

    I agree with you that every act is ultimately selfish – that is why in Asian religions, which are supposed to be about killing your ego, are actually about expanding your sense of ego to include everyone (and every animal and even thing). They understand you will only be compassionate to those you see as essentially yourself.

    Be that as it may, tribalism is expanded selfishness, and people who are not selfish out of a declining vitality, cannot muster up tribalism. And people who have expanded their selfishness beyond tribalism to include all mankind are beyond tribalism.

    But the root of virtue is selfishness. If one identifies one’s selfishness with more of humanity one is more virtuous.

    What we call unselfish people are people whose selfishness extends to all mankind – truly unselfish people are apathetic and listless, and cannot be virtuous.

  53. Willem says:
    @Biff

    I made the point in my comment that race=class. You seem to have totally missed that by pointing out that I make a reference to a Hollywood film.

    Which begs the question: what point are you trying to make?

  54. @atlantis_dweller

    If I would elaborate I would be accused of “racism” and “cultural supremacism”.

  55. republic says:
    @atlantis_dweller

    They hang the man and flog the woman

    I don’t know about you,but flogging seems better than being hanged.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  56. @republic

    That’s what my comment said, if I understand the meaning of the words “preferential treatment” ☺️.

  57. Willem says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    ‘Compare the cultural achievements of Australian Aborigines, Bushmen, Pygmees and Bantus with those of Europeans’

    The Europeans lived in an environment where they had to make inventions like warm clothes, housing, agriculture and the like. Australian Aborigines, Bushmen, Pygmees and Bantus never had the need to because Nature provided them with warmth, housing and plenty to eat. Suppose a European traded places with a bushman, would the bushman acted differently in Europe, and the European in the bush?

    Which is the whole point: race=class

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  58. nobaloney says:

    Darwin’s natural selection paradigm did not serve the cause of Enlightenment “progress”, but the more humble and natural Homo Sapien cause of “survival”. Darwin insisted on the importance of heredity, but did not provide a mechanism for understanding this process. His implicit attacks on previously held views on unity and harmony in nature, and on the notion of universal progress, were not complemented with examples that made room for the particular adaptations to political thought. Darwin-inspired literature contradicted the Cosmopolitan emphasis on harmony and cooperation among individuals with its emphasis on struggle and competition in nature.

  59. Re: the “dysgenic” tendency of monasticism to draw off the more intelligent, and the importance of intelligence to evolution in general…

    Examine your assumptions about intelligence being an unqualified long-term benefit for the survival of a species. It’s a bias in Darwin, and a commonplace one today as well. Yet there’s no reason to consider intelligence as inherently providing a species with more opportunities for survival.

    For one thing, countless extinct species are clearly intellectually superior to the vast majority of existing species. The dodo was undoubtedly a foolish bird, while cockroaches are many orders less “intellectual” and nevertheless thrive.

    For another thing, every major threat to human survival since at least the advent of agriculture may be viewed a result of human intelligence. At some historical point, our intellect took the place of external natural forces as the main source of challenges to our survival.

    There’s considerable elision between radically differing definitions and applications of this “intelligence.” Far too much to go into here, but it’s certainly worth considering that intelligence as we generally describe it is at least less of a factor in continued human survival than we like to believe.

    Increased ability to adapt within a generation is a different matter than heritable evolutionary adaptation; for one to conclude that increased intelligence is desirable because it grants an evolutionary benefit in the modern human world, one must assume WITHOUT PROOF that the modern human context is itself a desirable evolutionary stage. This assumption seems to consistently go unquestioned, in the manner of superstition and propaganda.

    If one takes the conservative view that progress offers many opportunities to go in an undesirable direction, and that we are currently well along one of these, the only conclusion must be that the factors that encourage progress have been given too much encouragement and reinforcement.

    And, arguably, the aspect of intelligence which pursues and encourages progress (as we generally describe it) may very well be detrimental to the overall viability of our species. One might convincingly argue that the majority of applications of intellect to our problems of survival have ultimately been so shortsighted that they only seem like progress due to our limited capacity for long-term thinking. What reason do we have to think that we can arrive at an intellectual solution to the problems that intellect itself creates?

    Perhaps the monastic trend is actually one of nature’s many subtle (to our minds) ways of asserting the evolutionary drive for species viability. Removing the more intellectually endowed from the gene pool might be just as useful for an overreaching species as disease or homosexuality.

    Let’s face it, the more intellectually endowed members of our species are notorious for failing to reproduce, or reproducing less and later – whether from semi-conscious choice, or simply perceived unattractiveness. It’s difficult to see this as anything but a natural drive to normalize our general intellectual level. It may very well be that the benefits of intelligence become dubious to a more civilized species, just as the benefits of fronteirsmanship often become liabilities when the territory is settled.

    It’s inviting ridicule to say this, but it’s not wrong to assert that conservatism at its heart is dedicated to the delay of progress. A conservative intellectual must consider that their emphasis on intellect for the viability of the species may be at worst merely self-serving (I’m smart therefore smart is the thing to be!) and at best the victim of generations of altristic but unfounded universalist progressive propaganda (the smarter we all are, the more smart choices we’ll make, and the better it will be for everybody!).

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  60. @Willem

    The natural environment selects for certain survival mechanisms which become hereditary and thus fixed. Different populations with different hereditary characteristics (both physical and mental) are called races, not classes. Classes are social devisions within races and their characteristics can change with social changes.Races cannot change by changing the environment. You cannot change Blacks into Whites by settling them in Scandinavia, nor can you change Whites into Blacks by settling them in the Congo. Race denial is not science but a (cultural Marxist) political construct.

    • Agree: Agent76
    • Replies: @Willem
  61. wayfarer says:

    Esoteric Theory of Human Intellectual, Physical, Spiritual Evolution.
    source: https://www.lawofone.info/synopsis.php

  62. @republic

    Thank you for that which I shall now forward to some of my fellow descendants of goose stealing forbears, lucky enough to be sent on a long sea voyage, who soon attempted to join the class of commons enclosers by accepting Crown grants of land which was terra nullius (thanks to the Abos around Sydney not having barbed wire, maps and settled agriculture).

  63. Agent76 says:

    Aug 6, 2013 Evolution Vs. God Movie

    Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world’s top universities.

    • Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA

    • Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC

    • PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris

    • Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

    A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin’s finches and Lenski’s bacteria—all under the microscope of the Scientific Method—observable evidence from the minds of experts. Prepare to have your faith shaken.

    “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C. S. Lewis

  64. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes quite, you’re right, but that Aborigine down under with his boomerang is no threat to me or almost anybody while those who invented WMDs and nukes? And whites have been their own worst enemy especially considering the last two world wars, which have decimated European populations. Consider that at the beginning of the 20th Century just the population of Germany was increasing by almost a million each year, and compare that to today.

    Something worth considering with regard to IQ and race is the fact that the white population is in decline due to low reproductive rates while the other races, especially the Africans are increasing in number so that if this trend continues eventually there will come a time when there will be a higher number of high IQ Asians and Africans than whites. So for example, although there may be few high IQ outliers on the bell curve of African IQ today relative to the bell curve of whites, the absolute number of high IQ Africans will increase as their population curve rises while the number of high IQ whites will decline as their population declines. The number of high IQ Asians probably already exceeds that of high IQ whites given their generally high IQ and their high population.

  65. Art says:

    Darwin: The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people (167).

    In Darwin’s time he could not see the “power of words” that we see today. Now, knowledge evolved from the Greeks, is shaping our Earth. In Darwin’s time biology was king of the Earth. Now, knowledge is king.

    Biological race is diminishing in importance – anyone of any race can acquire knowledge. Though it requires genius to create knowledge – it does not require genius to use it.

    There is not one molecule on the face of the Earth that has not been impacted by intelligence and knowledge.

    We humans are into the era of the survival of the fittest knowledge – not the fittest biological specimen. Today it is the intellectual culture that dominates – not the biological tribe.

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. There are three levels of organization on our planet – the physical, the biological, and the intellectual. It is time we give the third one it’s due.

  66. @Sollipsist

    Just look at the cleverer boys in a class, and it’s starkly clear they’d come in last in the survival race in all of human history, except, well, the contemporary era.

    Intelligence has become cardinal in the age of technology: it’s easy to see how this fact has reshuffled the hierarchy of races (among other things) in the world.
    Broadly speaking, nature and natural selection hold no great preference for intelligence, they don’t act in accord with technology, and I wonder if technology is to be seen as a force now competing with nature, applying its own selection.

    • Replies: @Anon
  67. FvS says:

    Whether races exist due to evolution or the will of a cosmic being is ultimately irrelevant. The fact remains that they do exist. The question is, do whites deserve to have countries of their own?

    Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity, different races build different societies that reflect their natures, and it is entirely normal for whites (or for people of any other race) to want to be the majority race in their own homeland. If whites permit themselves to become a minority population, they will lose their civilization, their heritage, and even their existence as a distinct people. – Jared Taylor

    As long as whites continue to avoid and deny their own racial identity, at a time when almost every other racial and ethnic category is rediscovering and asserting its own, whites will have no chance to resist their dispossession and their eventual possible physical destruction. Before we can seriously discuss any concrete proposals for preserving our culture and its biological and demographic foundations, we have to address and correct the problem we inflict on ourselves, our own lack of a racial consciousness and the absence of a common will to act in accordance with it. – Sam Francis

  68. joe webb says:

    “On the extreme cruelty of tribal peoples towards outsiders, Darwin observes that Amerindian women and children joyously participate in the torture of captives and that “common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, ‘Never, never trust an Indian’” (142).”

    I was thinking about that a couple days ago, that is, the American Indian practices of extreme forms of torture.

    It merits further study

    I am reading Thucidides’ Pelpponesian Wars. The “cruelty” of killing whole enemy cities’ men, while enslaving the women and children is vexing to a modern reader. Then there is the even worse behavior of Caesar in Gaul later.

    I have not seen any reference to torture in the accounts of the ancient world of Whites.

    The perceived necessity of killing all the men of a city can be seen as rational given the proximity of all these ancient cities to one another. Simple and Reasonable.

    Then more later, in the Middle Ages, etc.

    However, to repeat, Torture does not seem to pop up in my reading of these ancient times of White people..

    Torture does not seem to fulfill an evolutionary goal of increasing fitness for group survival.

    American Indians tortured one another as well as White Settlers.

    Hence, the only good Indian is a dead Indian, became the norm. Our current crop of North American Indians are heavily cross-bred with Whites. Ditto the mestizos of Mexico, etc.

    Nevertheless, torture and beheading remains part of the mestizo criminal class. Also, the general level of violence in Mexico is quite high, and probably underreported.

    Worth a deeper look. I am told by a friend who runs a crew of Mexicans, that any personal insult can quickly lead to violence.

    Joe

  69. Art says:

    Maybe a new race would be best of all. A Eurasian race?

    Asian women are the best of the Asian race. White men are the best of the white race. Maybe they should start a new superior race?

    Asian women are serious people – they are focused on achievement and family. White males are not satisfied with the status quo – they want better – that is their best trait.

    Sounds like a superior combination.

    p.s. Their children are beautiful. Would they have beautiful minds?

    • Replies: @anon
  70. anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    A Jew as usual. Never heard of the guy, but it was a little over a decade ago that I began to notice that so many of the people that push this BS were either Jews or were funded by Jews. At the time I thought that this was very peculiar, but nowadays it doesn’t surprise me at all.

  71. anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    And yet today we see the least selfish and contentious people have trouble cohering, while the more selfish and contentious tribes cohere better.

    Just making sure I understand you correctly:

    “least selfish” = black and brown third worlders?

    “more selfish”= Europeans and E. Asians?

    Anyone who has spent time in the currently still existing nationalistic countries, as I have primarily in Asia, will be astonished at the level of predatory activity among members of the same tribe.

    Asian countries have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. Even China is pretty safe. What “predatory activity” might you be referring to? Corruption levels? I’ve spent time in many countries all over the world, but I am struggling to understand what you are saying.

  72. Willem says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    ‘Races cannot change by changing the environment.’

    That is true, and that is why there is just one human race: homo sapiens.

    Now for the rest of your comment, I can only say: have you ever been to Scandinavia? White and black Swedish people are really the same, if you, of course, are willing to stratify by class.

    Which is the whole point: race=class

  73. @j2

    So, from your vantage point of superior knowledge what should we believe about changing life forms over hundreds of millions of years if we shouldn’t accept the essential Darwinian insight about natural (and, though a small part of the whole, sexual) selection by proliferating creatures being more or less suited to further multiplication according to whatever environmental niche they found themselves in?

    • Replies: @j2
  74. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @atlantis_dweller

    Switch the brain on instead of uttering BS. Of course you could try defining “contemporary era” to mean one that started with agriculture but you would need to say so. The top four brains (all eventually top academics or professionals) in my school year were 2 x successful cross country runners, 1 x first class amateur cricketer and footballer and 1 x all rounder from rowing to tennis to skiing for university. Unlikely to be lacking in survival capacity in any era.

  75. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @atlantis_dweller

    How about being likely to contribute more than they take out of the communal pot? In contemporary terms likely, with their extended families, to be net taxpayers.

  76. @Anon

    Your second link does not give any support at all to your statement that Darwin copied, and misunderstood, Spanish naturalist Felix Dr Azara. So…. care to start again?

  77. @Anon

    Ah, I see I have just wasted my time bothering to read and follow up your later comment and link. You are clearly not a serious person: perhaps one of the alcoholics who occasionally appear on UR threads with a splutter.

  78. @DH

    I think you have a problem if you think that was an excellent comment. And if you think Gerd Müller is not a developer of what Darwin started, as nearly all modern biologists are, then you should read this

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis?wprov=sfla1

  79. anon[783] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art

    If so, then why not Asian men and white women as well? God knows we’re better for them than stupid niggers. The worst mistake the civilized races can do is allow mixing with Negroids.

  80. j2 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “So, from your vantage point of superior knowledge what should we believe about changing life forms over hundreds of millions of years if we shouldn’t accept the essential Darwinian insight about natural (and, though a small part of the whole, sexual) selection by proliferating creatures being more or less suited to further multiplication according to whatever environmental niche they found themselves in?”

    Great Wiz, I always liked these ironical people, superior knowledge indeed. But I try to answer. Evolution, as can be seen from fossils, happened, but I think that the explanation by the mechanisms that today are proposed are insufficient. As I see, there are three problems:
    1. the origin of life is not explained, it should include the problem of why this world has the present time, i.e., what makes the time move. In a four-dimensional world nothing moves, there is no present time, so there is something very essential missing.
    2. the conscious mind is not explained. What Darwin said is not only that humans are monkeys, which everyone can accept. He implied that humans are automatons, which contradicts immediate experience as we can create robots that behave as humans (to a sufficient degree), yet have no conscious mind, and I very much doubt bacteria has any conscious mind. This also reflects to the purpose of life. Is the purpose of life indeed to impregnate every woman you meet? That is the survival of the fittest, but it may not be the correct answer, first answer why there is the present time.
    3. there is a mathematical problem in the theory. I do not like theories that have errors or gaps.
    I do not have an answer to the mystery of life. About 3 you can read a short post I just wrote, but read the ending of Timaeus, that is more important than the problem of probabilities. I think you should read Timaeus. It is painful reading to a physicist especially, but still useful in a way
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2019/01/28/1265/

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  81. wayfarer says:

    Universe is populated by countless entities that exist in service-to-others, willing to give of themselves, both freely and unconditionally.

    There is a Sun with its radiating light, the Earth with her generous ecosystems, fresh oxygen manifesting from rain forests, driving winds across vast seas, sweet fruit from untold trees, and so on.

    A mysterious “Creator” and some “Infinite Intelligence,” gives generously and takes sparingly, always searching for perfect balance and harmony – unlike humanity, which continues to just selfishly serve itself.

  82. @Willem

    You sin against science and logic. Human beings belong to one species called “homo sapiens”, which is subdivided into several sub-species aka varieties aka races*). The term “human race” is therefore incorrect. The correct term is “human species”. There is one human species, but there are several human races, who differ from each other.

    Whether individuals of different races belonging to the same social class behave the same or not does not change their racial identity. Therefore the phrase “race is class” is nonsense.

    ____________

    *) The same subdivision of species into subspecies/ varieties/ races pertains also in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. There are different “races” of horses and roses.

    • Replies: @Willem
  83. @j2

    Interesting reading but it all seems to be about your wanting to revive the idea of a Creator God, inevitably (it seems to me in the absence of credible explanation to the contrary) psychologically anthropomorphic and totally unsaleable to anyone with an open mind. Apart from some such reintroduction of a deity that for some reason one is supposed to think cares for our welfare and should therefore be attended to and obeyed what does it matter whether our current best theory about the beginning of life on earth matters? What does it matter that biological evolution may have been much more complex than at present understood? Darwin’s natural selection remains basically unchallenged and the truth that logic does not allow immediate inference of an “ought” from an “is” means we have a lot of subtle and honest thinking to do if we are to improve our morals by understanding human nature and it’s evolution.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  84. @Intelligent Dasein

    Has Stephen J Gould risen from the dead?

    Has so much shit ever been spilled, yet saying Nothing?

  85. Willem says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    So your point is that I sin against your definition of what you call race. So your point is?

    That what you define as ‘race’ (colour of skin) is as essential to man as the size of his shoes, the colour of his eyes, and so on. It has no meaning whatsoever unless you stratify race by class. Only than it matters a lot, since men of colour have, on average, less opportunity to come into the priviligized position of the average white man.

    Which is the whole point: race=class

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  86. @Willem

    And those white and black Swedes you mention have the same predilection for crime, like say rape, do they? And have you been to Papua New Guinea? Same like whites in a European country are they? They court women the same way as whites do, eh? (I know there are exceptions but you’re the one generalising).

  87. Rather than saying that race is a social construct perhaps we could say that society is a racial construct. I’m sure members of other races would agree too if they’ve travelled in different societies and bothered to notice.

  88. j2 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Interesting reading but it all seems to be about your wanting to revive the idea of a Creator God, inevitably (it seems to me in the absence of credible explanation to the contrary) psychologically anthropomorphic and totally unsaleable to anyone with an open mind.”

    Indeed, I do not try to revive this idea. The idea of an anthropomorphic Creator God is rather new, I date it to about 10.800 BC when a comet hit the earth and humans concluded that there is a God in heaven, having his throne at the North Pole and that the sky circulates around him and there is Hercules and the Milky Way and all that. What I want to revive is that the physical world that we see is not the whole thing that exists.

    “Apart from some such reintroduction of a deity that for some reason one is supposed to think cares for our welfare and should therefore be attended to and obeyed what does it matter whether our current best theory about the beginning of life on earth matters?”

    I have not noticed a deity that cares about our welfare and should be obeyed. Those things we got from some middle eastern people who claimed to know. Whether scientific theories are correct or not matters for those who want to know.

    “What does it matter that biological evolution may have been much more complex than at present understood?”

    OK, you try to see if you can create the gene encoding cats Fel d1 protein with random mutations and you get a clear problem with numbers. I solve problems, I could not care if it matters to others. Researchers solve problems, that is what they do.

    “Darwin’s natural selection remains basically unchallenged”

    In an occupied world many theories go unchallenged as it is impossible to publish papers showing the errors and proposing an alternative. Try for fun publishing a paper that shows that the relativity principle does not hold when you equalize time delay in the direction of the movement and orthogonal to it. No editor will pass the paper to a referee. They just refuse to read it. That is what I call occupied zone science. We have a lot of it recently.

    “and the truth that logic does not allow immediate inference of an “ought” from an “is” means we have a lot of subtle and honest thinking to do if we are to improve our morals by understanding human nature and it’s evolution.”

    I do not know about this moral stuff and why there should be ought.
    Darwinism is not science, it is a political doctrine. It tells to conquer the world and populate it, reminds of your God who told people to fill the earth and make it man’s servants. These are from the same line of though. . They might be more happy solving problems, even of evolution.

  89. @Willem

    That is not my definition, that is the definition of science. Human races differ from each other in more respects than in skin color only : skeleton, skull form, endocrine glands, brain tissue, different reactions to certain diseases, medicines and food etc. etc. And then there are the mental differences in intelligence and temperament. You appear to be ignorant about the basics of the subject of race, one of the reasons you are able to accept the Big Lies of cultural Marxism. If Blacks cannot come into the “privileged position of the average white man” due to white racism, why then does he still fail to do so if there are no white people around, such as in Haiti or black Africa ?

  90. Man went hunting and than divided his prey among favorite women.
    Man who went hunting and did not bring anything divided nothing,
    First man had reward sex, and the other did not have descendants.
    There you have a natural selection omitted by Darwin.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  91. And there was another thing.
    Man were dying in combat,while women were were dying in childbirth.
    Men naturally did avoid combat if they could.
    Women had no chance.
    So women were dying in greater numbers than man.
    In the case of combat the winning tribe did kept the women.

  92. @AaronB

    Mark my words, the more a group has a reputation for producing individuals who are selfish and ambitious, the more too it will be tribal.

    Due to how humans interpret things, reputation is far from a faithful mirror of actuality, and on such basis I question your statement. (Meaning that, perhaps, the most hawkish and ambitious will be judged as the most philanthropic by mainstream social opinion) .

    Coming to the “the more tribalistic they are the more they prey upon one another”: one of the elements that inform tribalism is fear of the next fellow. To overcome the fear, one shows his/her liking of his/her next fellow. Humans, on the conscious level at least, will experience thoughts and sentiments aligned with what they “have to” show outwardly.
    It’s a most short logical step from there to: the more reason there is to fear one’s next fellow, the more one will be tribalistic.
    The more they fear their “mates” the more they “like” them.

  93. joe webb says:

    lots of silliness on this thread.

    Natural Selection and Sexual Selection are the two traditional dynamics of Darwinian evolution.

    The first thing in N.S. is the global north vs. the global south factor. Cold naturally selects for smarter people, hence the smarties are in the North and the dummies are in the South.

    Sexual Selection is based on prestige and beauty. Deformed children are abandoned. More beautiful specimens are preferred, but most importantly, Prestige is rewarded, particularly with regard to men.

    The alpha male is the one who best strategizes for group survival. He naturally is recognized as a leader. This dynamic also holds true for women, but their biological role is to promote the peace and love in the family and tribe.

    Men are attracted to the alpha male and because we are a social animal, we men and to a lesser extent women, form alliances based on prestige. We assort per prestige. and abilities.

    In historical ancient times, the most prestigious men were the best war-leaders. This also included the ability to speak effectively. Speaking and war ability were most valued in Ancient Greece and Rome.

    Earlier…providing for the family and tribe was similar…the best hunter, etc.

    As technical progress was made, other channels of obtaining prestige opened up…ditto forms of provisioning.

    Today we have probably dozens of major forms of prestige acquisition. Females biologically are programmed to think about children, and their ‘weaker’ sex status. They are attracted to alpha male types.

    Today, politics and “ideology” also are forms of selection for both sexes. This is what we generally call culture and could call Cultural Selection.

    Because of Cultural Selection, the gene pools are up for grabs. The Browning of America and Europe is our current problem.

    There is only one way the two sides in the current cultural struggle will resolve their conflicts…and that is war.

    War has always been a significant factor in evolution. The stronger win, the weaker lose.

    Culture is changeable as we have seen it in out own time. Right now, Whites are losing.
    That may change but it will be accomplished by both peaceful and violent struggle.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  94. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Men in primitive societies hunt in a group and they divide their prey equally.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  95. j2 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Darwin’s natural selection remains basically unchallenged”

    It is like this if you want to have evolution by meiosis and random mutations. In order to create a new species that has something visibly different to the earlier ones, you do not need any competition or struggle of life. You need about 100 million years and a population of 10 billion individuals (or less time and a larger population of e.g. bacteria). Let this population be in peace, you do not need to make there competition or anything. The new gene will develop as an inactive gene from a duplicate, so it cannot be affected by anything in the environment. Then a child is born, who is different from the others, and he will marry his sister and they will start a new species. And this new species will be worse than the old species in everything for at least 10 million years, so it has to be protected. Again, no competition allowed. Finally, in a great day of destruction, the dominant species falls. Only after that the new species inherits the land.

    It is just like in technics. New technics is created in laboratories, no competition with old technics. It will not come from pushing with carrots and whip, but from time and trial-and-effort. Then you have to let it mature, and when the stock market crashes and the old big blue falls, then there is your chance.

    Darwinistic struggle for life is old testament heresy, which Freemasons and bankers believed. You do not actually see it so much in the nature. There are only very few species, both in animals and in plants, who push out all other species and spread everywhere. Such species are like the Israelites of the Old Testament, or their new version of today. We are warned not to cultivate any such plants or animals, as they may get loose and will spread and be a real problem.

    When you say anthropomorphic god, you mean the Christian God compared to Yahve, whose image you must not make. But it is not like this: multiply and fill the earth, and conquer the land and make other nature your servants. It is like this, let there be peace and many people be born, after a long time a child is born, a wonder child, who will marry his sister, and the family is cared for in a far away place, for a long time until the day of the destruction comes, then the big will fall and he will take his kingdom. This is what evolution by random mutations actually suggests.

  96. @joe webb

    Isn’t it a shade “silly” to call prestige what is utility?
    Both men and women seek to be related with others (mostly men, due to sex differences in ability thus utiliyu) based on how utile these others promise to be for them.

    Prestige has a high positive correlation with utility, but utility is the real lodestar.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  97. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Not really. For mammoths only. For rabbits, elk, and other small pray the hunting is more successful
    by individual hunting. In case of group hunting individual in group approach have a greater chance to alert the pray.

  98. @apollonian

    Nothing is funnier than two of you JewGod worshippers arguing even when one of you is on my ignore list and I can’t see what drivel he’s spewing. Don’t stop now! I won’t read it, but surely I’m not the only one amused..

  99. @Sean

    he also said that black men were more physically attractive than European men.

    I was right there with you until this. Then you lost me. There’s a vast difference between the Hollywood negro like Idris Elba and the standard garden variety like these guys:

  100. @Franz

    Europeans, to paraphrase the great Robert Graves, blew it when they dumped their own Great Deity for a Middle Eastern fairy tale, a tale that let Judea into Europa and made us second class citizens in our own lands. All men must be chosen by the Divine for the Land they call holy. The lads from the Levant made short work of that.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who recognizes this. The imbecility of the JewGod worshippers blaming the Jews for imposing a mind virus today while failing to see their own infection is beyond parody.

  101. @Willem

    ‘Race is a social construct; not genetic.’

    Normally, I don’t reply to imbecile Trolls, just hit the ignore button and move on, but this is such a fine opportunity to restate my axiom:

    SOCIETY IS A RACIAL CONSTRUCT

    As always, you retards got things exactly ass-backwards..

  102. joe webb says:
    @atlantis_dweller

    please tell me what utility means.

    Speak English please. But I assume that what you mean is that which serves some important function.

    Prestige is a great word cuz it compasses all that is beyond simple utility. It gets into the psychology of personal attraction…from good looks, to speaking ability, to social skills, to that which Attracts as in charisma, courage, and aggression towards enemies.

    Your utility sounds pretty utilitarian, fit for liberals and libertarians,

    Joe

  103. cokeefe says:

    Darwinism may be the main answer for many atheists, but for those more focused on spirituality (not religion) it explains mankind in only the most elementary ways.

    I get the feeling that the author is trying to hint at something. I’ve seen his stuff over at TOO also, a website dedicated to informing with facts and evidence which also has the same “hints”.

    The “hint” is too dark for me to contemplate or name here. I’ll leave that to the reader to decide.

    If it is savages that use constant warfare aimed at neighboring tribes, then I guess we Europeans are very brutal savages. Our history is littered with warfare and invasions….Even today.

  104. cokeefe says:
    @apollonian

    I find your argument compelling but your use of degrading other commenters is rather Savage if you ask me.

    • Disagree: apollonian
  105. jhan says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    What a lot of words to say absolutely nothing

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 Guillaume Durocher Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored