The leftist mutational load is not in genes but in memes.

As society becomes more prosperous, and improves its social safety net, survival values become less important. The beliefs that preserved the safety of individuals in earlier generations can be replaced without greatly compromising the host.

The new worldview is sometimes described as “luxury beliefs”. For example, those who do not live among black people can have the luxury belief that blacks are no more likely than whites to engage in knife crime or to commit other forms of street violence. Possession of this belief is not merely a luxury, but a signal of superior social status – a subtle advertisement that one does not live among blacks.

A teacher may believe that knife crime could be solved by education, but that this outcome is thwarted by insufficient government spending. The underlying belief is that if a person knows what I know, he will think what I think and do what I do – this is utterly untrue, but it is a comforting way to promote an idea that is both a luxury belief and promotes one’s own interests. It is an outright lie that poses as generosity of spirit at best, “enlightened self-interest” at worst.

The problem is that, in European countries, more than half the population either works for the State or is totally dependent on welfare. Anybody who has a realistic view of mankind is fighting against the non-enlightened self-interest of more than half his fellow men and women.

As religious belief fades, so does the idea of Original Sin – the notion that man is imperfectible. In its place we have Original Goodness, the mad idea of Rousseau’s followers that we are born good and then corrupted by the world.

The cards are stacked against us. This is how civilisations die.

We are not the first to face this decline. Several civilisations have gone the same way, as John Glubb explained nearly 50 years ago. Nobody was listening then, and they are not listening now.

https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

I have not read Dutton’s book and do not know if he addressed the following specific topics. I am only going by this essay.

Without taking racial differences into account, any study of inherited genetics and behavior is worthless. The pre-Homo Sapiens European species by necessity had to store food in seasons of plenty to survive the seasons of want, a behavior completely unknown in sub-Saharan Africa; they also had to trust that their neighbor(s) would not raid the food stores and cause the group to face starvation. Planned and organized hunting parties were subject to the same conditions. Females (most particularly mothers) needed males to help provide food and physical protection from predators, whether the predators were beast or human.

But in our time (that is, going back several centuries), the pressures of the hunt, and the day-by-day fight against the elements, have been diminished or virtually eliminated. Now, the descendants of the European hominids promiscuously share food, wealth, and territory with their biological enemies, including hominids that are only vaguely human. It is in the White European DNA to share and to trust; unless Whites can learn to see themselves as a biological race worth being continued, which I do not believe will happen, Whites will share themselves to extinction.

A number of recent studies (for one see http://politicallyintrigued.blogspot.com/2018/08/deeper-into-psyches-of-conservatives.html ) suggest the difference between conservative and liberal is rooted in how different personalities cope with the response to new situations that is common to all: fear. The conservative tends to process this anxiety into resistance to change, which is perceived as threatening, while the liberal personality transforms the initial anxiety into stimulating opportunity for improvement. The names of the factions thus formed vary from time to time and place to place, but the pattern repeats throughout human history. It appears to be a matter of emotion, rather than intellect; humans are far less rational than we like to think we are, after all.

So there appear to be natural reasons why societies see the formation of two conflicting political factions. Some members of the group band together to conserve the status quo. Other members of the group are moved to ally to effect desired changes from the status quo. We are often tempted to say that the party opposing us is irrational, or failing to see their own interests; but it really comes down to the fact that the parties don’t have the same value priorities.

One interesting study, “Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/?report=printable found differences in brain anatomy between these groups. MRI brain scans were conducted of 90 individuals who self-reported their political attitudes (“very liberal” to “very conservative”). They found that “increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex was significantly associated with liberalism,” and that “increased gray matter volume in the right amygdala was significantly associated with conservatism.” They did a replication study with 28 more subjects and obtained similar results. They noted that one function of the amygdala concerns the processing of fear, and people with large amygdala have been found to be more sensitive to fear. On the other hand, one function of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty. The researchers cautiously hypothesized that people with larger amygdala would be more inclined to conservative views, and people with larger ACCs, having “a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts,” would “accept more liberal views.” Overall, Kanai et al. believed that these results were “consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty.”

Woke leftists (oops, redundancy) tend to love “ad hominem” (clicking on the slanted I didn’t work) arguments over substantial issue debates. They’re weak intellectually, as they can’t confront reality head on.

They don’t live in a real world; only an echo chamber. Their spokesman is David “Camera” Hogg. Sorta 1200ish SAT, yet gets into Hah-vahd. Back in the late 60s, a 1200 then is now equivalent nearly to 1,400. Or higher. By the mid-90s, its scoring had been adjusted 83 points upward on average.

Interesting thoughts, Professor Dutton! I would also add Kanazawa’s theory that because higher intelligence equips people to cope with novel challenges or novel environments, it is typically smarter people who tend to endorse maladaptive ideas with a history of failure, such as atheism and socialism (and, I would add, “clever” reasons for not producing offspring) which were not typical of our past evolutionary environment. These are views we would intuitively shun if they occurred to us at all in a more rigorous environment where survival was more difficult. Woke ideas certainly belong in this category, as does ethnic self-loathing.

Smarter people are better able to, and therefore more likely to, rationalize these maladaptive ideas. Intelligence and higher mutational load are likely to be two different factors affecting the rise and spread of cultural liberalism, and while higher g (not higher IQ test scores per se) is negatively correlated with intelligence, the intelligence difference between left and right is not that large. Kanazawa writes in _The Intelligence Paradox_ that the average IQ difference between self-reported “extremely conservative” and “extremely liberal” responders was 10 points, a meaningful difference but certainly modest enough that many persons with a higher IQ score would also carry more mutations.

I would like to add another factor here. As a result of the covid vaccine disaster (see the VAERS data), renewed interest in the side effects of vaccines generally has led to two interesting findings. One study (which the CDC resisted doing for many years even in the face of public and political pressure) compared vaccinated with unvaccinated children of approximately equal (and large) numbers. The vaccinated group had the usual number of autism cases (which may adversely affect one’s proclivity to believe in divine beings), which the unvaccinated group had not a single diagnosed case. That indicates how rare diagnosable cases of autism may have been before vaccination became common.

Even more recently, Silicon Valley engineer turned vaccine sleuth looked a different sample of vaccinated versus never vaccinated persons and calculated that 79% of the psycho-sexuals maladaptations could be explained by vaccine exposure.

By the way, the USA is the most heavily vaccinated country in the world. Vaccination ramped way up in the years following 1986 when Congress granted drug companies legal immunity from damages caused to victims of their vaccines’ adverse effects. And as vaccination doses rocketed up from less than 13 on the recommended vaccines “schedule” in 1986 to 54 doses by 2011, so did the incidence of food allergies (an autoimmune reaction) and autism (which many medical scientists suspect is linked to autoimmunity).

I don’t think anyone was really monitoring the increase on sexual identity malfunctions of various kinds until recently, but it is quite possible that those too were quietly exploding in prevalence as vaccinations soared. And if we go a little farther back in time, I think the 1950s, a recognized side effect of vaccines was “minor brain damage” or perhaps it was called “minimal brain damage,” but somewhere along the way, the pharma industry managed to sweep that language under the rug.

So the Wokist revolution may not be due primarily to increases in mutational load, although that too must be going on and must be having an effect of some yet to be determined size since the collapse in childhood mortality in the early 20th century. I would like to see someone try to tease apart the genetic and environmental effects, but that may require that more grant makers and science journals first become more open-minded to “unapproved” evidence. The list of “things you can’t say” or examine or admit to even thinking about in an open-minded way continues to grow longer and longer.

One more thing about that study which the CDC “resisted doing for many years” is that I did not mean to imply it has stopped resisting! The study had to be funded and conducted by the private sector. The CDC has adamantly resisted and still does resist comparing vaccinated individuals with never-vaccinated individuals, even though it likely has the data but refuses to look at it. (One female appointee told Congress she recognized they should be doing this sort of valuable research and would see that it got done, but never lifted a finger apparently.) Some years back when Ron Paul was still in Congress, he and some other Congressmen sponsored a bill to COMPEL the CDC to do this research, but a committee chairman mysteriously killed the bill in committee so that it could not come up for a vote on the House floor. The CDC only favors studies that compare the vaccinated with the vaccinated, and the authors dutifully and invariably announce that they find no “statistically significant” results. (It reminds me of how, in an earlier generation, the tobacco companies’ cancer researchers could never find any convincing evidence that smoking caused lung cancer.) However, when you compare the vaccinated with the never vaccinated, it is much harder or impossible to cloud the results, which a skilled research designer certainly knows how to do.

But your meme theory ignores the question of why do some people gravitate toward new and sometimes obviously maladaptive memes but not other people? The more maladapted individuals are likely to have more mutations, which must affect the brain (and hormones) as much as it does other parts of the body. I have a suspicion that MPA’s (Minor Physical Anomalies), which are positively correlated with sexual disorders, violent crime, child molestation, etc., could serve as a proxy for mutational load. By monitoring changes in the MPA’s, we could get a good idea of how fast a meaningful level of mutational load was increasing.

BTW, a good animal breeder would cull any animal with visible MPA’s. Strict culling is how we keep our domesticated flocks and herds from degenerating. I can imagine a science fantasy scenario where mankind, or a nation or some other segment of humanity, found ways to cull their less perfect specimens. Within 10 or 20 generations, they could have a hugely improved population which would outclass in terms of health, longevity, intelligence, athleticism, etc., that part of the species which had refused to subject itself to artificial selection. I call this a science “fantasy” because it would require a drastic reorganization of the social and political order to implement, but in theory it is completely workable. We do this with cattle routinely for traits that are economically important to the rancher, but many urbanites do not like the idea of being “bred like cattle.” We are so missing out! The so-called “superman” that some people debated about in the early 20th century (GB Shaw’s play, “Man and Superman” was inspired by this debate) is entirely possible. Most early eugenicists denied that they wanted to create the superman, but why not?

I think the key to eugenics is a new social order, one based around eusociality. Man already checks off 3 of the 4 boxes needed to be constitute a fully eusocial species such as the ant or the bee or the naked mole rat. (Not every eusocial species is Hymenoptera. Even termites are not Hymenoptera.) The only thing we lack is a reproductive division of labor. Of course, the nature of our species is such that we could probably never have a total division of reproductive duties, but a partial division of reproductive labor would be sufficiently effective. Regulating the fertility of the population sounds shocking to us, but the Tikopians did it for centuries.

Of course, while the Tikopians avoided the Malthusian trap on their tiny island by regulating collective fertility, they did not implement a system of differential fertility. Controlled differential fertility is the secret sauce that turns Malthusian population control into eugenics. And of course, this could only be done in a group of people that was, like the Tikopians, extremely homogeneous, because only a highly homogeneous population could be persuaded to subject itself to a discipline would not only regulate their fertility, but would allow some selected members of their community (the queens and drones) to be more reproductively successful than others.

I don’t buy the hypothesis that liberalism is only another way of adapting to the environment. It ignores the fact that a lot of what liberalism endorses and fights for is maladaptive, and usually more maladaptive for liberals than for anyone else. For example, white liberals were the only group of Americans that professed in a survey to hate their own race. That is anti-Darwinian. Extended years of female education and female equality is both dysgenic for society as a whole, AND it reduces the fertility of liberals more than of anyone else (because educated liberal women reduce their childbearing more than educated conservative and religious women do). Promoting non-heterosexual personal identities is another self defeating liberal fad. And need I mention the “defund the police” movement, although it has at least led to some entertaining moments when liberal advocates of this idea got mugged!

And I could list other maladaptive ideas that liberals especially are very fond of. One of them is this recent war in Ukraine, which liberals planned to provoke several years in advance (we have the documentation). NATO’s weapons are being numerically reduced, its ammo depleted, some of its most feared weapons shown not to really work very well on the battlefield, NATO is now less feared by its enemies, and the other half of this plan, the sanctions war, is not only failing but is provoking a large part of the world to reduce their holdings of US dollars and Treasuries and to build a new trading order that is not based on the US dollar or dependency on a US controlled global financial system. The economic danger will prove far worse than the military one. Oh, and we have also weakened the economies of our close allies in western Europe so we could sell them more of our high priced LNG to only partially and inadequately replace some of the Russia gas we made unavailable by blowing up the Nordstream pipeline (as both Nuland and Biden promised on camera that they would do), which was not so much an act of war against Russia as an act of war against Germany! This is totally insane, but liberal Democrats and “moderate” Republicans love it. All empires decline eventually, but we have just set ourselves on the fast track.

Now let’s think about the immigration act of 1965 and analogous policies in Europe, the liberal resistance in the US to student ability grouping even though it is proven to improve outcomes, US liberals’ hatred of phonics just because conservatives preferred to return to it, even though the liberal alternative that conservatives were reacting against has been repeated documented to be inferior, the abolition of effective energy systems by liberals because of fake global warming hysteria which has morphed into a cult, the discovery that the only social class in the UK that has above replacement fertility is habitual welfare dependents yet liberals resist cuts, separate studies in England and Sweden that showed their convicted felons have double the fertility of the general population yet liberals continue to support soft penalties — things such as these are not just different ways of skinning the cat; rather, the liberal preference is flat out dysfunctional and self-defeating. It is maladaptive even for liberals themselves who will be losers both absolutely and relatively. And let us not forget liberals’ tendency to discourage traditional religion, even though there are many studies that consistently show that religious practice is associated with better individual outcomes in many ways (see for example Rodney Stark’s book, _America’s Blessing: how religion benefits everyone, including atheists_ ).

These are not two different ways of maintaining a livable society. No, many liberal choices are flatly maladaptive, and in some cases are even more maladaptive for liberals themselves than for the cultural and moral conservatives they so disdain. It is like Calhoun’s failed Mousetopia colony, but with people. Mousetopia was not just a different way of being a mouse, it was a maladaptive extended phenotype. Liberalism is a maladaptive extended phenotype too, and those maladapted liberals control every major institution in western civilization. The psychotics are steering the ship!

So a 50% child mortality rate “purges mutant genes” and keeps pesky liberals at bay, says the author. And those who lived did so because they are fitter and we know they are fitter because they survived, I suppose, completing the tautological circle. And those hordes of sea turtle hatchlings, where only the minutest percentage survive, are what, superturtles? Or just winners of a blind luck lottery having nothing to do with fitness?

And that overbearing mutational load, you know, from that 95-98% junk-gene genome of ours? Well, guess what, those junk genes are functional, biologists have discovered. Over at evolutionnews.com, Casey Luskin took a day or two to catalogue over 800 articles regarding research describing those discoveries.

Richard Dawkins, who in 2009 said the 95% junk-gene genome supported neoDarwinism, now says the overwhelmingly non-junk-gene genome supports neoDarwinism. I read that he has also claimed that it matters not whether the Cambrian Explosion and fossil gap are true or untrue, that either way Darwinism is supported. The ol’ irrefutable theory, indeed.

I don’t recall any of the courses I took in biology, chemistry, or geology providing any serious debate on Darwinism. A physical anthropology class was much more lively, where the professor took an interdisciplinary approach, laying out various lines of reasoning and evidence. We dismantled Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” theory, determined that the relatively explosive increase in hominid brain capacity was not explained by prevailing theory, and delved into the nooks and crannies of “Origin of Species” and “Descent of Man” where Darwin, in credit to his honesty and sharp intellect, mentioned various matters that could cast doubt upon or refute his theories.

Truth be told, Darwinism is in a jam, and biologists know it, and no concoctions like modular components just waiting to be selected or Lee Cronin’s “assembly theory” come to the rescue.

Many early critics of Darwin weren’t buying the notion that the complexity they saw could arise from accidental, unguided processes, but they couldn’t refute Darwin, who insisted that his fledgling theory be given consideration unless and until his notions of natural selection could be refuted. Modern biochemistry is light-years beyond anything available in his day.

And what’s the state of origin-of-life (OOL) research? Surely those intrepid chemists have cracked the code and produced life in the lab. Well, I guess not, despite the hype that regularly springs up. The recent James Tour vs. Lee Cronin debate wasn’t really close, and that charlatan jackass “Professor Dave” is a total weasel. Dr. Tour is one helluva synthetic chemist, his nine-hour youtube series on OOL matters is most interesting, and he has shorter versions for those who have less interest or aptitude for chemistry.

Surely the proof that something is maladaptive is contingent on merely surviving and reproducing a reproducible offspring.

A mutant gene could be very selfish and successful. Almost all mutations are fatal but erm…but the bar isn’t high.

This is what happens when you presume that intelligence is purely heritable.

Western society is not some “marketplace of ideas” where “liberalism” (it’s a stretch to say that’s what it really is, but that’s the terminology that’s used) wins out because it appeals to “smart people.” People who aren’t liberal, or who do not simulate liberalism well in company (dissimulation is not enough – SHITLIBS KNOW WHEN YOU’RE NOT ONE OF THEM, UNLESS YOU TRY TO FOOL THEM) do not have the same paths open to them. And this has a compounding effect, those who are not socially accepted have fewer opportunities for advantages in their education.

“I’m smart because I’m not religious”
“I’m smart because I believe in evolution and the blind chance occurrence of everything in this world”
“I’m smart because I believe in science, in particular climate and vaccine science”
“I’m smart because I’m not racist or bigoted, and I abhor antisemitism”

“And the test scores prove that people with my views are smarter than those who do not have them!”

(Because those niggers and rural hicks are more religious, and question if the earth is flat, and don’t put much stock in climate science, their descent from apes, and strange injections! And Louis Farrakhan taught them to distrust those wonderful brilliant Jews!)

The bloated vaccination schedule and the numerous toxic exposures in the modern diet are a more likely source of the psychological disturbances in so many moderns than a theorized mutation load. The craziness came about too rapidly for a genetic explanation.

I haven’t read the article (but I will), here are my “two cents”:

High intelligence (and being K-selected) aren’t good (nor bad) in itself, it will depend on the habitat. It is, therefore, irrelevant for ‘mutational load’.

In fact, being r-selected (or, fast Life-History strategist) might be your BEST chance for survival if you’re in Papua New Guinea, or what-not.
Likewise, as Prof Dutton noted, Islam reduces IQ and, in turn, increases Asabiyyah.

Of course, if what you’re going is, say, a High-Tech Civilisation, then you need high IQ and, as well, K-strategic traits.

Just read the article. Fascinating!

Indeed, I’ve heard about high IQ being associated with better health, but, what about this conflicting finding?¹ Has it been refuted‽ It claims, high IQ to be associated with “physiological diseases that include environmental and food allergies, asthma, and autoimmune disease” amongst many other things…

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324

“and we know they are fitter because they survived, I suppose, completing the tautological circle”

Not tautological. Fitness is a quantitative trait measured by the number of offspring that survive to reproductive age. Biology 101. 

“And those hordes of sea turtle hatchlings, where only the minutest percentage survive, are what, superturtles? Or just winners of a blind luck lottery having nothing to do with fitness?”

Fitness has a little to do with it (some hatchlings are presumably faster runners than others), but in their case most of the fitness-related mortality occurs among those who make it to the sea. If you are looking for a clever way to cast down on the importance of genetic optimization for fitness, this is not going to cut it.

“And that overbearing mutational load, you know, from that 95-98% junk-gene genome of ours? Well, guess what, those junk genes are functional”

Genetic load refers only to deleterious mutations in functional genes. This is true regardless of what the exact number of functional genes is. The number is not material to the questions raised in this thread.

“Richard Dawkins, who in 2009 said the 95% junk-gene genome supported neoDarwinism, now says the overwhelmingly non-junk-gene genome supports neoDarwinism.”

Whatever. Your ramblings so far are irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Do you have a (*relevant*) point to make?

“I read that he has also claimed that it matters not whether the Cambrian Explosion and fossil gap are true or untrue, that either way Darwinism is supported. The ol’ irrefutable theory, indeed.”

So what??? The topic at hand is NOT about theories of speciation. Your arguments belong elsewhere–on a thread about speciation.

“determined that the relatively explosive increase in hominid brain capacity was not explained by prevailing theory”

You all fell into the trap of groupthink. Your “determination” requires that you prove either than larger brains are not conducive to increased intelligence (which is objectively wrong when all the available evidence is considered), or that intelligence does not increase reproductive success among Pleistocene hunter-gatherers, which can be argued either way, but it certainly is not obviously wrong to believe that intelligence provides a small but meaningful advantage, and probably a bigger advantage in some environments than others.

“Truth be told, Darwinism is in a jam, and biologists know it”

No, I guarantee you that biologists (and geologists) do not believe this at all. But in any event, everything you are trying to argue about is OFF TOPIC. The subject of this thread is NOT theories of speciation. The evolution referred to in this thread is merely changes in gene frequency over time, which is an objective, measurable fact. Gene frequencies are changing every generation. Even if you are correct to argue that speciation is not an ongoing process, that it is no longer occurring at all, that assumption would change NOTHING about the points raised in Dr. Dutton’s article. Are you just trying to hijack the thread?

“and no concoctions like modular components just waiting to be selected or Lee Cronin’s “assembly theory” come to the rescue.”

I agree that EPists’ “modular” theory of brain structure is inaccurate, but that doesn’t change the overall picture. You can understand that some car models are faster than others even if you are a bit fuzzy on how the engines actually work.

“unless and until his notions of natural selection could be refuted”

Genetic science has firmly established that genes are the mechanism of heredity, and it is at least as well established that not every organism of a given species is equally fit to survive the rigors of life in the wild. When some of these organisms are either domesticated or raised in a sheltered environment, then artificial selection must be substituted for natural selection. When it is not, the lineage degenerates. This is beyond theory at this point. It is no more theoretical than the sphericity of the earth, or the existence of Australia in the antipodes.
 
“Modern biochemistry is light-years beyond anything available in his day.”

True? Yes. Relevant to Dutton’s article which is about genetics, not speciation? NO. You are trying to hijack the threat, pretending to reply to the article (baiting), but then ranting about a subject (speciation theory) which is irrelevant to the topic (switching).

It is maladaptive if it reduces fitness (the number of offspring who survive to reproductive age) below the level characteristic of alternative traits or genes in other organisms of your kind.

“Every generation, high child mortality was purging mutant genes from the population, keeping it genetically fit. With the breakdown of harsh Darwinian selection, due to the Industrial Revolution and its advancements it medicine, we would expect a massive build-up of mutation.”

This clearly shows that you don’t have a clue how Evolution works. Each and every single human being, including conservatives, are born with between 50,000 to 150,000 “novel” mutations. These mutations are not necessarily “good” or “bad”. You are ascribing moral values to something that is, essrntially, amoral.

Conssider APOA1 Milano. This is ia missence mutation to one of the coding exons of the APOA1 gene(Apolipoprotein A). It arose, as the name implies, around Milan some 150 yeara ago. This mutation promotes *superb* cardiovascular health, and people that carry this ultra-ratre mutation(1 in 250,000 people), tend to outlive normal peopel by decades.

Or consider the R43X( rs121909358, chr5:42688934) to the GHR(growth hormone receptor). This is a nonsense mutation that introduces a stop-gane to Exon 4 of the Groth Hormone Receptor, replacing the codon from “GCG” to “GTG”. This essentially causes loss-of-function to not only the Exon, but to all Exons of the gene that are upstream of Exon 4.

When this mutation is present in homozygous form, it causes Laron Dwarfism. Because Laron Syndrome is an Autosomal Recessive condition, if you inherit one of this mutation but another “healthy” one from one of your parents, then you do not develop Laron Dwarfism. However, heterozygotes to the mutation tend to have a dramatically improved ability to process glucose and amino caids, and tend to be extremely long-lived. This mutation, when present in heterozygous form, was overrepresented by a factor of 10 X among Centenarians.

And even more dramatic example would be the mutation that leads to sickel-cell anemia. When present in homozygous form it causes Sickel-cell, but when present in heterozygamous form it offers protection from Malaria!

The point here is that mutations are not necessarily damaging, and even when they are they can actually be beneficial in heterozygous form or even in homozygou form,

The fac that you think that mutations are a sign of “inferiority” goes to show that you don’t know anything about biologiy. Miutations are the *engine of Evolution* .Thye can cause disease or be benficial depending on the environment and the needs.

“Liberal males are less muscular and they are shorter while liberal males”

I don’t hink that this is true at all, statistically. And even if it is, I fail to see the relevance of this. Okinawans have the longest life expectancy and they are short. Most Hollywood leading men are short. Tom Cruise is 5’8. . Brad Pitt is 5’9.

” liberal males and females have less attractive and less symmetrical face”

Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, Kim Basinger, Alice Eve, Emily Blunt, Rachel Weiss, Sharon Stone, etc, are all either liberal or progressive women, and they don’t seem ugly to me. I mean, some of tehm are now over 50 so their looks are shot, but they were lovely young. As for the men, here you go: Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Nen Affleck, Keanu Reeves, Chris Evans,e tc, are all liberal men. BTW, have you ever been to a Trump rally and seen what those people look like?

Also, “ugliness” is not an indication of mutational load. Henry Kissinger was an ugly man, but he was very intelligent and lived to 100. Accumulation of deleterious mutation causes disease, and there is no evidence that white liberals have more fdisease than conservatives.

White liberals are overepresented among the upper middle-class and upper classes, and they tend to be healthier and better-looking than conservatives.

but you are right about intelligence. Years ago, there was a study that conservatives got very proud over, that showed that conservatives averaged 1 to 2 higher IQ points than liberas. But then, that study had 80% non-white minorioties in the conservative side, and they asked for Party affiliation rather than ideology.

When they re-did the study with only white people and asked for whether the person is liberal or conservativ, the liberals averaged 9 points higher than conservatives. White people that identified as consevative averaged an IQ of 98, Vs 107 for liberal. 9 points higher! That means that, above an IQ of 130, there are 7 X more liberals than conservatives!

You know what I think about this article that you just wrote? that you’re *salry* .You’re just jealous. You cannot wish away the enormous success of white liberal people by making up interpretative narratives of studies by protraying them as defective mutants, when those same studies are pointing out objective ways that theya re superior.

The studies are mixed on some of these questions. My best assessment is that there probably is a weak positive relationship between elevated IQ and risk of anxiety related disorders, but, assuming it is real, it is easily outweighed by the net benefit to society. (See economist Garett Jones’ book, “Hivemind: why your country’s IQ matters so much more than your own”).

The autism link has a weak genetic basis, but autism was very rare before the advent of heavy vaccine dosing (and allergies were also much rarer). Overexcitabilities (Dabrowski’s discovery) are just the different facets of the Openness to experience factor in the “big five” personality schema. Elevated Openness facets are more obvious in the high IQ population, but that’s not a disorder, although teachers may find it annoying.

Some of these numbers look more intimidating than they really are. For example, from the paper you cited:

“In this study, mood disorders included depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, and bipolar disorder. Estimates of mood disorders within the adult population range from 8.4% to 12% [so about 10% in the general population]…. As expected, there was a higher incidence of mood disorders in the high intelligence sample; 17.3% more than the national average”

So this means what, 10% for the “national average” versus 12% for Mensa members? I’m not getting too excited about that difference! (Again, assuming the difference is even real, which is not certain.)

Also, these problems have a known genetic basis and if we have the ability to raise intelligence via artificial selection, we also have the ability to reduce these disorders (which are concentrated in two clusters of genes, with “conduct disorder” being based on a third genetic cluster – see Plomin’s book, “Blueprint” for more info, an easy popular book, but I still learned some things from it even with my prior extensive reading in sociobiological materials).

“Almost all mutations are fatal” – No, very few, and those are not the most worrisome ones, since they tend to be held in check by natural selection. More worrisome are the far more numerous sub-lethals which can accumulate until the population develops a “failure to thrive” condition from the collective weight of many accumulated mutations which are individually sub-lethal, but collectively catastrophic.

“High intelligence (and being K-selected) aren’t good (nor bad) in itself, it will depend on the habitat.”

Yes.

“It is, therefore, irrelevant for ‘mutational load’.”

No. First, muational load affects everything, not only intelligence and life history strategy. Second, even in P-NG, there is an optimum level of intelligence. Too low is definitely a disadvantage.

To a significant extent, man creates his own habitat. We can create cultural conditions (part of the habitat) which lead to higher or lower intelligence. The secret to our strength is our ability to work together, to coordinate, which is facilitated by complex and expressive language, by low reactive aggression, and by high general intelligence. Slow life history strategy (where man is one of the most K selected species) is also a factor in our hyper-cooperation. When a human population allows a condition to develop in which lower intelligence and faster life histories increase reproductive success, it weakens its strongest asset, the capacity for mutual cooperation.

Why did the world’s most high IQ societies, northern Europe and East Asia, develop in these two locations only? The people in these areas accidentally created the conditions favorable to rising intelligence, but we could also do that on purpose, since those conditions no longer exist by chance. Europe, in addition to higher intelligence, also developed elevated creativity, a personality trait which interacts synergistically with elevated intelligence to produce a high incidence of creative achievement, but I do not have time to go into the details of that.

We are lucky, or perhaps blessed by heaven, that we, without knowing what we were doing, developed an understanding of the biological process that brought us to this fortunate state, and therefore we have the potential, before the next ice age overtakes us, to figure out how to extend our favorable genetic development indefinitely through cultural engineering. If we fail, we shall likely descend back into barbarism for the next hundred thousand years.

Could it be that more intelligent people are more likely to be economically successful and, therefore, whether nouveau riche or old money, that they are more likely to suffer guilt over what they might see as unearned wealth? This guilt alone might lead to an indulgence in luxury beliefs but could well be magnified by their ability to live apart from the rabble, with indulgence in luxury beliefs only growing stronger and more intrenched through generational wealth (e.g., the Kennedys).

Perhaps the high IQ have more allergies because they are simply richer, so their houses (and other environments) are much cleaner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis

managing fear and uncertainty

Conservatives want small government and leftists want big government, how does that make sense?

the liberal resistance in the US to student ability grouping even though it is proven to improve outcomes

I.e. the best get to be the best they can be at the expense of equality/equity?

the abolition of effective energy systems

Can oil be relied upon indefinitely?

Why use the word liberal when referring to people who want big government/control over other people?

The Moral Foundations of Liberals and Conservatives vary; No wonder, au contraire, conservatives do want to control other people’s, say, sexualities and what-not – whether this is good or bad (moral or immoral) it’s immaterial here.

Conservatives at higher rates want the State to censor Bible- and Flag-burning, compared to liberals;
Likewise, they think there’s a role for the State (!) in the Death Penalty – liberals don’t;
And, let’s not even talk about abortion!

Point is: liberals do see places where the State has NO role, whilst conservatives think the State should, instead, be active.

Leftists don’t want bigger government?

… it is perfectly possible that I am wrong.

This clause, which is included in the third sentence of Edward Dutton’s essay, is the essay’s intellectual apex. It is also the part of the essay with which I find it easiest to agree.

Excessive cleanliness could certainly be a contributing factor if we look farther back in time, but the huge spurt in food allergies in particular (many schools are afraid to allow peanut butter in the cafeteria it has gotten so common) so hot on the heels of the huge increase in vaccinations, and at the same time as the spurt in autism diagnoses (and autism is suspected of having a relationship to autoimmunity as well) is probably not just a coincidence. I really don’t think the wealthy have become vastly more sanitary since Congress granted the pharma co’s their own immunity – from lawsuits for vaccine injuries or fatalities – in 1986. Cleanliness had pretty much peaked already well before 1986.

1. ability grouping: it has been demonstrated to increase both the performance and even more so the enjoyment of classes of students at all ability levels. It is also easier for the teachers. Everyone wins but the racially obsessed ideologues who wring their hands over “disparate impact.”

2. energy: the attempted substitutes are totally inadequate as replacements for oil, coal, gas and uranium. I am quite aware that these other sources are finite, but we have no choice but to rely on them while they last unless we can come up with a truly workable substitute. Wind and solar are not those substitutes, not even if the technologies continue to incrementally improve. They are already too close to their theoretical maximum efficiency.

3. I use the word liberal because here in America that is what those people have generally called themselves since 1932, and the usage has “stuck,” however technically inaccurate it is. Europeans would say social democrat, but many Americans are not familiar with that term, which is not standard usage here.

“Leftists”, anarcho-communists apart, do want (much) bigger Gov’t than US-style conservatives. So, yes!
.
.
.

Certainly it’s imcomplete – but, the central difference I see between Left and Right, I use this analogy:

A band finds an unknown fruit in the forest; He who says “Let’s eat it, maybe it’s delicious and can cure my ailments!” is the left-winger. He who argues “Don’t eat it, it could’ve bad taste and might kill you!” is the right-winger.

Neither is wrong.

Can oil be relied upon indefinitely?

No, it will run out when planet Earth dies, whether (1) via a collision with a comet or an asteroid that President Morgan Freeman can’t avert or (2) when our sun goes supernova.

In the meanwhile, oil, not being a fossil fuel—pace the pronouncements of a century’s worth of liars and fools—will remain available in effectively inexhaustible supply.

… clicking on the slanted I didn’t work …

To italicize a letter, a word, or a block of copy, first use the mouse or the keyboard to highlight the copy in question; then click on the boxed I directly above the comment box. Voilà.

Mutatis mutandis for copy you wish to set boldface or as a block quote.

Consistent with this, liberalism is associated with a number of markers of mutational load. Liberal males are less muscular and they are shorter while liberal males and females have less attractive and less symmetrical faces. These traits imply that, being genetically sick, they have fewer bio-energetic resources left over to accrue muscle, reach their phenotypic maximum height and maintain a symmetrical phenotype.

It only implies that to someone looking for this theory. Your theory is wrong. It’s the theory of a chinless wonder in a smoking jacket, forever drunk, thinking he’s worked out the entire world.

Their genetics through breeding determine their phenotype, not their ‘burdens’ determine their phenotype, which is garbage. It sounds nice, but it’s wrong. Good looking and smart people get autoimmune disease, cancers and degenerative disease too.

Honestly Ed, you would fit this mutant description. Are you a leftist ? Why aren’t you on their side ?

There’s no question that people who wouldn’t be alive without modern medicine are alive. That’s not controversial.

If you are placed on a maladaptive road map – which Wokeness places you on –

There are many things that can put someone on a maladaptive road map, wokeness is just one of them.

But what is wokeness ? Whites have exactly zero adaptions to negroids and Jewish subversion. They have no idea how to parse them. If blacks start chimping out over George Floyd, whites assume these apes must be right and they need to ‘do something’, ‘be better people’, ‘reflect’, all prodded by Jewish media in that direction. There’s not even a part of the white brain that has natural answers

“Each and every single human being, including conservatives, are born with between 50,000 to 150,000 “novel” mutations.”

Almost all children are born with less than 100 de novo mutations. yeah, I know, my blue eyes are also due to a mutation, but that mutation happened thousands of years ago, and there is a mix of pros and cons to the mutation. However, some mutations are uniformly harmful, or the benefit is outweighed by the cost.

“These mutations are not necessarily “good” or “bad”.”

Mutations may be good, bad or neutral, but mutations are deleterious (although usually mildly so) far more often than they are beneficial.

“Conssider APOA1 Milano.”

Yes, some mutations are beneficial, but they are the exception. Most are not.

“Or consider the R43X( rs121909358, chr5:42688934) to the GHR(growth hormone receptor)….
When this mutation is present in homozygous form, it causes Laron Dwarfism. … if you inherit one of this mutation but another “healthy” one from one of your parents, then you do not develop Laron Dwarfism. However, heterozygotes to the mutation tend to have a dramatically improved ability to process glucose and amino caids, and tend to be extremely long-lived.”

Problem is if you raised the frequency of this mutation to 50%, a half your children on average would benefit from the single mutation, but another quarter would be dwarves! The reproductive benefit of a single copy is likely to be outweighed by the reproductive cost to the dwarfish siblings. Most of the benefit of a single copy is likely to come in one’s post reproductive years. I have read that the somewhat famous Laron dwarf population in Ecuador are dissatisfied with their diminutive stature. In photos I have seen, they also tend to be somewhat corpulent.

“This mutation, when present in heterozygous form, was overrepresented by a factor of 10 X among Centenarians.”

If you want more centenarians in the population, it would make more sense to artificially select for slower post pubescent aging. Heritability of rate of aging is about 0.40.

“And even more dramatic example would be the mutation that leads to sickel-cell anemia. When present in homozygous form it causes Sickel-cell, but when present in heterozygamous form it offers protection from Malaria!”

There are better genetic adaptations for dealing with malaria. Two copies is lethal, and even a single copy causes some degree of impairment (which is also true of other Mendelian disease causing recessives according to eminent geneticist Alexei Kondrashev in his book _Our Crumbling Genome_ ).

“The point here is that mutations are not necessarily damaging, and even when they are they can actually be beneficial in heterozygous form or even in homozygou form,”

Generally speaking, heterozygote advantage of rare mutations is only in certain narrow environmental circumstances, and there are usually better ways of dealing with those adverse environments. Obviously, you would want to maintain a mutation that was consistently beneficial, but those are rare. Overall, mutations are adverse on average. This is not just theoretical. When you remove selection from a captive population, the accumulation of individually sub-lethal mutations leads to the deterioration of the species, and in short-lived species, this has been tested until the lineages went extinct.

“The fac that you [Dutton] think that mutations are a sign of “inferiority””

For the most part, it is. The exception does not disprove the rule.

“Miutations are the *engine of Evolution*”

This saying has been oft repeated, but I think it would be more accurate to say that mutations are the fuel of evolution, and selection is the engine. Without selection, there is no evolution, and deleterious mutations accumulate to the point of mutational meltdown or advanced inbreeding depression, AKA “failure to thrive” as breeders call it.

[Dutton:] “Liberal males are less muscular and they are shorter while liberal males”

[Peter] “I don’t hink that this is true at all, statistically.”

I assure you, Dutton doesn’t say things like this if he hasn’t seen the stats! Of course, the difference is small enough that the casual observer might not notice.

“And even if it is, I fail to see the relevance of this. Okinawans have the longest life expectancy and they are short.”

There are pros and cons, but overall, there are more cons than pros to being of below average height, obviously for men, but also for women since shorter women have more birthing problems.

“Most Hollywood leading men are short.”

A few are, but they are cast in those roles in spite of their stature, not because it offers an advantage. And anyway, Hollywood is a world of illusion, a far cry from real life.

” liberal males and females have less attractive and less symmetrical face”

“Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, Kim Basinger,”

Etc., etc., yes you can cherry pick exceptions, but again exceptions do not disprove the rule, just as naming off some unusually tall female basketball players would not disprove the rule that men are taller than women.

“Also, “ugliness” is not an indication of mutational load.”

Statistically speaking, yes, it is.

“Henry Kissinger was an ugly man, but he was very intelligent and lived to 100.”

Once again, the exception does not disprove the rule, just as listing a few highly intelligent fundamentalists would not disprove the rule that fundamentalists are less intelligent than Episcopalians (who just edge out Ashkenazi Jews on IQ tests).

“Accumulation of deleterious mutation causes disease, and there is no evidence that white liberals have more fdisease than conservatives.”

I don’t know that anyone has actually looked at this, but that does not mean the evidence is not there, waiting to be found.

“White liberals are overepresented among the upper middle-class and upper classes”

Yes.

“and they tend to be healthier and better-looking than conservatives.”

That is not what the data say.

“but you are right about intelligence. Years ago, there was a study that conservatives got very proud over, that showed that conservatives averaged 1 to 2 higher IQ points than liberas. But then, that study had 80% non-white minorioties in the conservative side, and they asked for Party affiliation rather than ideology.

“When they re-did the study with only white people and asked for whether the person is liberal or conservativ, the liberals averaged 9 points higher than conservatives. White people that identified as consevative averaged an IQ of 98, Vs 107 for liberal. 9 points higher!”

So adding People Of Color to the conservatives RAISED the conservatives’ IQ from 98 to 107??? The sample is obviously quite skewed! A truly random sample of POC would not have a mean IQ of 107+, therefore, the white sample may not have been random either.

However, I do think cultural liberals have a somewhat higher IQ than cultural conservatives, but why that is still mystifies me because it is easy to see the practical flaws in liberal positions, and in my experience, liberals do not have good intellectual defenses for many of their liberal preferences. It usually devolves into blathering about questionable “rights,” “social justice,” “compassion,” and the practical consequences are ignored.

“You know what I think about this article that you just wrote? that you’re *salry* .You’re just jealous.”

I don’t think you should pretend to be a mind reader. It comes too close to the ad hominem fallacy. Also, when people pretend to know what I am thinking, they are usually wrong, and you are probably wrong about Dutton for the same reason. Further, even if you were right, it would have no relevance to the argument, it would not prove that any of Dutton’s points were incorrect.

‘A band finds an unknown fruit in the forest; He who says “Let’s eat it, maybe it’s delicious and can cure my ailments!” is the left-winger.’

And the right winger says, “Good idea! You go first!”

“Their genetics through breeding determine their phenotype, not their ‘burdens’ determine their phenotype, which is garbage.”

Why is this “garbage?” After all, some persons’ “genetics through breeding” are indeed “burdens.”

“It sounds nice, but it’s wrong. Good looking and smart people get autoimmune disease, cancers and degenerative disease too.”

All this proves is that the correlation is not equal to one. It does not prove that the correlation is equal to zero, which is what you are trying to imply.

“There are many things that can put someone on a maladaptive road map, wokeness is just one of them.”

Granted, but this does not disprove Dutton’s point. Your statement is a red herring, a case study in “what-aboutism.”

“Whites have exactly zero adaptions to negroids and Jewish subversion. They have no idea how to parse them. If blacks start chimping out over George Floyd, whites assume these apes must be right and they need to ‘do something’”

SOME whites, more specifically, YANKEES. This is not the attitude one typically finds among Southerners.

Why is this “garbage?” After all, some persons’ “genetics through breeding” are indeed “burdens.”

I don’t think you understood what Dutton meant. Dutton has repeatedly said leftist mutants are so burdened by disease, that this disease load shapes how they look. That’s garbage. I’ll stand by that. Dutton has got carried away and made a mistake. More likely unattractive people tend to breed more with each other and pass on ugly traits.

All this proves is that the correlation is not equal to one. It does not prove that the correlation is equal to zero, which is what you are trying to imply.

Not there’s no modern trend in certain directions at all. There may be, I haven’t studied it in detail. My gut feeling is yes there is. It’s more the ‘why’ that’s up for grabs here.

However all epidemiology suffers from the same weaknesses, you can find all kinds of interesting comparisons in data that look impressive, but they may or may not be meaningful. And sure ugliness and hideous bodies and self-destructive tendencies are not unique to the woke left so you have to account for that too, the onus is on Dutton to deal with this.

The impression I get is, is he’s picking markers which sound incredibly definitive but are actually rather vague, which are then being thrown around in a way to suit his thesis. They are very unconvincing to put it politely. The broad gist of the idea could be correct, it’s the details that are the issue.

Everything Dutton says, although he doesn’t explicitly say it, is about hwhite people. None of it applies to other groups.

Feeble bodies and ugliness are traits we associate with Jews. And as well Jews have diseases that affect them more like infantile Tay–Sachs disease. Are Jews as a whole burdened by this ? Is it holding them back ? Does it stop them ? Are they ‘woke’ ? One could argue the whole identity of Jews is as spiteful mutants in some ways.

But that’s not really what he means by this. I think he means white people dyeing their hair purple, supporting BLM, identifying as LGBT, ‘refugees welcome’, #MeToo

I would guess that’s as much a result of the effects of Jewish influence than their own genes.

“oil, not being a fossil fuel”

Sorry to ruin your day, but oil is most definitely a “fossil” fuel. That is why people who have drilled for abiotic oil in North America, Finland, and Sweden have come up dry even after drilling to the bottom of the oil window (below which the pressure and heat cause the oil to degrade into useless components).

That is why the Russians drill for oil only in places where textbook geology says it is likely to be found.

And that is why oil fields do not extend out to infinity but exhaust themselves as one approaches their perimeters.

It is also why the earth is not of equal density everywhere, but has a lower density (the industry uses devices that can “see” this, sort of like an x-ray) in places where oil deposits lie beneath the surface than where they do not.

This is also why Japan does not have an oil industry even though it is a major oil consumer.

Sorry to ruin your day …

Are you twelve? Grow up.

Believe what you like about oil,* but I have been reading scholarly journal articles on the subject since the early eighties. With print media being driven out of the marketplace in favor of the more easily manipulable and “editable” online variety, a great many studies that were once available in any form are no longer thus. Even online, however, there are literally scores of articles—some scientific, some journalistic—that leave glib assertions about oil’s origins gasping for air. Here follow links to just a few.

https://pdfslide.net/documents/oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel.html?page=1

https://vaccineimpact.com/2023/the-myth-of-fossil-fuels-and-the-myth-that-the-u-s-is-transitioning-away-from-oil-to-green-energy/

https://teslatelegraph.com/2023/10/18/expert-scientific-evidence-now-suggests-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-and-isnt-running-out-after-all/

https://principia-scientific.com/oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-and-agw-is-non-science/

https://expose-news.com/2023/10/01/great-oil-conspiracy-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel/
________
*Or what the Establishment tells you to believe.

This is wishful thinking, AKA whistling while you pass the graveyard. Nobody who has looked for this abiotic oil has found it, not even the Mormon billionaire James Sorensen who I have read spent a good chunk of his personal fortune looking for it. High technology doesn’t find it either. Before they had that advanced technology, they just had to keep drilling wells farther and farther from the strike until they found out how big the field was by drilling dry wells as they got to the edge of it. Why were the wells dry? Where was the abiotic oil? Why couldn’t Sorensen find it? It ain’t there. Dry wells beat academic papers. Abiotic oil either does not exist or at best it exists in such trivial amounts that it makes no difference.

BTW, here’s another paper you can add to your list:
https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:338107/FULLTEXT01.pdf

“I don’t think you understood what Dutton meant.”

I understand just fine.

“Dutton has repeatedly said leftist mutants are so burdened by disease, that this disease load shapes how they look. That’s garbage.”

“Garbage” is just a pejorative used to emotionally stigmatize unwelcome realities.

“I’ll stand by that. Dutton has got carried away and made a mistake.”

No, he hasn’t, but if you think otherwise, show me your data. You are being swayed by your emotions.

quote: Controlling for socioeconomic status, we find that more attractive individuals are more likely to report higher levels of political efficacy, identify as conservative, and identify as Republican.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/effects-of-physical-attractiveness-on-political-beliefs/D5214D0CAE37EE5947B7BF29762547EE

They spin it as being attractive makes people more conservative, but if you are relatively up to date on biopolitical theory, then you know that is unlikely. Our political orientations are driven by deep biological differences, not just superficial priming effects which are much weaker.

Also, Dutton literally “wrote the book” (well, a book) on this subject:

And in other research, conservatives versus liberals can be identified better than chance by study subjects just by their photos.

“More likely unattractive people tend to breed more with each other and pass on ugly traits.”

And they are also more likely to lean left politically and culturally! Not a coincidence. It is in part a product of elevated genetic load. So is non-right handedness (also more left leaning, no pun intended) and “minor physical anomalies” (trivial birth defects such as attached ear lobes, cleft chins, unibrows, a missing crease in the palm of the hand, and large number of other items that most people don’t pay attention to but which can be measured with a scale such as the Waldrop Scale) which are positively correlated not only with political liberalism but also with pedophilia, homosexuality, violent crime, and assorted mental illnesses (and so is non-righthandedness and reduced bilateral symmetry).

If you are not up on your biopolitics, the following two books are not comprehensive, but they do make for a good introduction to the subject:

Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences
by Hibbing, Smith, and Alford

The Securitarian Personality by John Hibbing, a study of people who think Trump is “one of the very best presidents of all time:”

“However all epidemiology suffers from the same weaknesses, you can find all kinds of interesting comparisons in data that look impressive, but they may or may not be meaningful.”

It is true that the effects are very small, but cumulatively they point very strongly to an underlying biological basis for our political and cultural orientations, and this is not a widely accepted conclusion in the relevant specialties, although they don’t like to mention the links with MPA’s, sexual and mental disorders, violent crime, or other unflattering stuff, but it all points in the same direction as the less offensive items. Conservatives and liberals even have different body odors, but you are not likely to consciously notice it unless you concentrate some bodily fluids in a test tube.

“And sure ugliness and hideous bodies and self-destructive tendencies are not unique to the woke left”

Yeah, I’m sure the John Birch Society is full of tatooed freaks with piercings in weird places.

“The impression I get is, is he’s picking markers which sound incredibly definitive but are actually rather vague”

No, there are ways to measure these things. Measurements don’t mean much for any one individual, but when you start averaging across large numbers of people, a clear pattern emerges.

“The broad gist of the idea could be correct, it’s the details that are the issue.”

Obviously, if you want details, then you will have to do more extensive reading than a short article.

“Everything Dutton says, although he doesn’t explicitly say it, is about hwhite people. None of it applies to other groups.”

I am sure it applies to other groups too, but, fairly or not, most of the academic research has been done on white study subjects. That is not Dutton’s fault though.

“Feeble bodies and ugliness are traits we associate with Jews.”

No, Jews do not have feeble bodies, and ugliness is mainly associated with Ashkenazis, not with all Jewish sub-races.

“And as well Jews have diseases that affect them more like infantile Tay–Sachs disease. Are Jews as a whole burdened by this ?”

The Tay Sachs gene (which is unusually common among the Ashkenazis but not other Jewish groups) is suspected to enhance intelligence a little. It is only the ‘Ashkenazis that have this very high number of genetic issues, and the mutations involved are located in an incredibly tiny part of their genome. They likely arose as a byproduct of strong selection for higher intelligence during the Middle Ages and Early Modern period.

Here is the famous paper about this, “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence” by Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending:
https://selectra.co.uk/sites/selectra.co.uk/files/pdf/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

A less academic summary of this paper constitutes one the chapters in the Cochran/Harpending book, “The 10,000 Year Explosion: how civilization accelerated human evoluton,” which is well worth reading:

“Is it holding them back ? Does it stop them ?”

Mutations for intelligence are at least partly functional, even if some of them are double edged, so no, it doesn’t stop them. Note that is quite different from mutations that arise as a result of WEAK selection pressures; Ashkenazi mutations arose from STRONG selection pressures. Of course, in more recent times, they are subject to the same rise in genetic load as the rest of us.

“Are they ‘woke’ ?” – Well, yes, many of them are! They are notoriously left leaning, at least in the diaspora, although many of them turn right leaning when they migrate to Israel. I saw a stat one time from a Jewish source that right wing Jews far outnumbered left wing Jews in Israel, although it is the opposite for Jews who live among Christians. I think this is situational or strategic for many of them.

“One could argue the whole identity of Jews is as spiteful mutants in some ways.”

No, because historically they have not hurt their own group, except to the extent that they miscalculated from time to time. Smiting an outgroup doesn’t count as spiteful in an evolutionary context. Of course, the usual caveat applies: they are currently subject to the same dysgenic trends as the rest of us.

BTW, in the scientific literature, “spiteful mutants” applies to literal genes rather than their carriers.

“But that’s not really what he means by this. I think he means white people dyeing their hair purple, supporting BLM, identifying as LGBT, ‘refugees welcome’, #MeToo”

Those people really are spiteful, and I don’t doubt that their genes are a big part of the reason why for the typical participant. They are like bees who are trying to destroy their own hive. “Let’s sink our ship!” This is not all opinion either. A couple of years ago or thereabouts an academic paper was published revealing the personalities and attitudes of these people. They really are a mean, selfish bunch, on average. Dutton is outspoken, but he doesn’t just make stuff up.

“I would guess that’s as much a result of the effects of Jewish influence than their own genes.”

Then why aren’t you and I marching in the streets with Antifa? We are all exposed to Jewish propaganda, but we don’t all have the same response to it. Some of us even have the opposite response.

Ever since the Enlightenment (really going back even a little earlier to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes), the intellectuals have told us that everyone is born equal or at least conceived equal and only our environments make us different. Thus, we are potentially perfectible with the right education and other interventions. That is where Marx and Freud got their egalitarian assumptions from, French and British intellectuals of the Enlightenment. We did not get any significant pushback against their blank slate propaganda until Darwin, Galton, and Spencer, but the egalitarians never went away, and by the end of WW2 they held the commanding heights. People’s first intuition is still to automatically seek “environment explains everything” explanations. It’s just wrong. All the evidence points to a major role for heredity, but people just don’t want to accept it.

CORRRECTION: “and this is not a widely accepted conclusion in the relevant specialties”
should read: “and this is noW a widely accepted etc” , OOPS!

Nobody who has looked for this abiotic oil has found it …

Like many other newbies hereabouts, you plainly have less interest in reading and reflecting than in talking. In this, at least, you will never lack for companionship.

Ever since the Enlightenment* […] the intellectuals have told us that everyone is born equal or at least conceived equal and only our environments make us different.

*Christianity.

The “Enlightenment” was a remarkable surge of Christian superstition.

Sadly the idea isn’t original to Christianity either. Democracies, such as Athens, have to claim all voters are equal. Otherwise, why not select the best voter? Why not elect, you know, a king?

Stuff like Athenian democracy decays into Christianity as the idea that only “Citizens” are equal is so untenable that even men who can believe women=men can’t sustain it.

Meanwhile the idea that all men are equal comforts the legacy Savannah brain, which instinctively believes it’s still living in nomadic 100-man bands.
This brain thinks a 1 in 50 is a rare trait, lol. Meanwhile, it broadly refuses to acknowledge the possibility of variation beyond the 1 in 50 level. “Elon Musk can’t possibly be worth 30,000 of me!” Yes, well, about that…

Simpler solution: the study relating politics to IQ is garbage. There’s so many possible reasons it might be garbage, it’s not a question of whether it made a fatal mistake, but how many fatal mistakes it made.

Just to start, have you heard that participants will lie on a survey?

If the real finding is that the high IQ will claim to be left-wing, it’s distinctly less counter-intuitive, now isn’t it?

This is going to get complex, let me deal first with an issue here I now notice.

It’s possible I misread this article in a hurry, or Dutton has now changed his wording around this, perhaps as a response to negative comments (did he edit this article since it was published, @Unz?):

This is what Dutton had in a previous article: https://www.unz.com/article/we-shouldnt-call-them-woke-we-should-call-them-mutants/

These traits imply a poor immune system, due to high mutational load, which has prevented them from maintaining a symmetrical phenotype, reaching their maximum height or accruing muscle because, with a poor immune system, they must invest disproportionately more of their bio-energetic resources in fighting off disease.

Outside of some very serious extremes, this statement reads to me as factually incorrect and rather foolish.

However as of today in this article (the one we’re reading) the statement is now:

These traits imply that, being genetically sick, they have fewer bio-energetic resources left over to accrue muscle, reach their phenotypic maximum height and maintain a symmetrical phenotype.

Which has a lot more wiggle room than the first statement. I think it’s still very faulty though and misleading.

“Garbage” is just a pejorative used to emotionally stigmatize unwelcome realities.

Hi Ed. Someone actually nitpicking the word ‘garbage’ appears to be the one reacting emotionally. It’s not a great omen for Dutton that it’s appeared in this context.

Thanks. Looks like a lot of material, much of it’s stuff I’ve heard already in some form, I assume some parts of it from Dutton have merit. However…

No, he hasn’t, but if you think otherwise, show me your data. You are being swayed by your emotions.

Oh help where’s my pages of data !? My ’emotions’ are out of control. I just didn’t know it until I engaged in a thread with a Dutton fan.

Now as I said in the prior post, there may be some muddle about Dutton’s specific statements, but I think it’s conspicous they have changed.

Outside of some extremes, or some very specific cases, immune burden, disease load -which I read as Dutton’s original claim, doesn’t change physical appearance in the kind of way Dutton describes. That’s a key pivotal point Dutton seems to be making. And he’s making it again here, but has rephrased it to avoid criticism perhaps.

Whatever the specifics of Dutton’s statement, you’ve said ‘no I do understand what Dutton meant’, gone on to write a huge amount to defend him, that probably took you a while, including embedding amazon links to his books, and then studiously avoided that key point.

Dutton making this kind of statement, and then his defenders avoiding it doesn’t inspire confidence in everything else he’s saying.

But perhaps your emotions got in the way of your scientific cool.

I actually left a bit out of the quote, it’s even more extreme:

Compared to conservatives, liberals have less attractive and less symmetrical faces, liberal males are physically shorter and liberal males are less muscular.

It then goes on to say,

These traits imply a poor immune system, due to high mutational load, which has prevented them from maintaining a symmetrical phenotype, reaching their maximum height or accruing muscle because, with a poor immune system, they must invest disproportionately more of their bio-energetic resources in fighting off disease.

Society becoming ‘more prosperous’??!! For some, of course, but, in the West, the Anglosphere in particular, the USA worst of all, ‘prosperity’ is because more and more family members work, often at more than one low-paid ‘jobs’, yet economic precarity only grows. Inequality is the greatest for at least one hundred years and growing, personal debt is sky-high, ‘deaths of despair’ rocketing upwards and anomie deepening. The ‘bellum omnium contra omnes’ aka ‘liberal capitalism’ is antithetical to human existence, never mind flourishing.

The ‘bellum omnium contra omnes’ aka ‘liberal capitalism’ is antithetical to human existence, never mind flourishing.

Thos Hobbes had a lot going for him, mulga, not least in the ready adaption of “warre of all against all” and descriptor of human life “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short” to many (and increasing number) under “Liberal” (haha) capitalism.
You are quite right.

As an act of Repentance for frequent criticisms of your posts, here is a humorous poem from Banjo “Waltzing Matilda” Paterson on someone with your name.

‘Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze;

He turned away the good old horse that served him many days;

He dressed himself in cycling clothes, resplendent to be seen;

He hurried off to town and bought a shining new machine;

https://trishansoz.com/trishansoz/mulga-bill/mulga-bills-bicycle.html

my argument is that under harsh Darwinian conditions of 50% child mortality, there was selection for physical health, mental health, conservatism, pro-sociality, and religiousness.

It depends on the particular society and how it views the circumstances of 50% child mortality. Some might consider it to be an unalterable fact of existential reality or a part of their identity. In other words, some societies might never plan on overcoming it, whereas other societies might treat it as a temporary condition due to a lack of material power, but which can be overcome in the future. Missing traits from this list are creativity, innovation, ingenuity—traits that would likely help a society overcome the 50% child mortality rate, assuming the society in question considers high child mortality to be a problem which needs a solution. These traits are also probably associated with “leftism”.

We were selecting for intelligence up until the Industrial Revolution, as I observe in Breeding the Human Herd. Carl and Winegard observe that, even today, intelligence is genetically correlated with mental and physical health. Yet it is also genetically predicts leftism: carrying alleles that are associated with very high education levels—and thus with high intelligence—and it predicts being left-wing.

I suspect to get to the Industrial Revolution in the first place, a society would need to perpetuate a certain amount of highly intelligent people who desire a radical change in the way things are. Steam engines didn’t come from people who wanted to preserve a way of life, but to change it. The Luddites were conservatives. The skilled tradesmen that were replaced by factories and assembly lines were conservatives. All the inventors who brought about industrialization would’ve been “leftists” who wanted to change everything.

But, of course, what this means is that intelligence has a paradoxical relationship with other markers of mutational load. When mutational load builds-up and makes the environment left-wing, intelligent people will become the vanguard of the new dispensation, despite, ironically, being relatively low in mutational load.

Mutational load doesn’t make the environment left-wing; the society in question was “left-wing” in the first place. That’s how you got from point A to point B, rather than remaining at point A indefinitely. It was the “left-wing” society that brought about the conditions where mutational load can build up. These “leftists” always were the “vanguard of the new dispensation” in the West. The Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Technocracy… all products of “leftism”, and you could go back even further.

Western societies tipped over very quickly, focussing on the liberal values of equality and harm avoidance; individualistic values that, in essence, put the individual over the good of the group.

Any “tipping point” here relies on first reaching a certain level of technological development and infrastructure which is brought into existence by “leftist” innovators and inventors. The only way you can put the individual over the group is if the society can operate without a close knit group identity, relying instead on individuals acting in their self-interest. So a developed transportation system that can span long distances, an economy that utilizes relatively low-skilled workers, and mass institutions that can provide services which were traditionally provided by family and community. In conflicts, such a society would overpower traditional societies that rely on an older anachronistic way of life.

Prof. Dutton, I would like to point out that Leftism is just a modern term for Gnostic. Gnosticism is an ancient heresy. 50% of early Christianity was gnostic. The basic core of Gnosticism is Alienation.

“Gnosticism was a byproduct of ‘seven Jewish heresies’, some of them involving gnostic currents. The account of Hegesippus notes that the movement is older than Christianity, something many later writers failed to note”. {Brown, Harold O. J. (1984) Heresies, Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, MA. pg 50.}

It was a researcher into ancient gnosticism, Prof. Eric Voegelin that noticed that Gnosticism has reared its ugly head and all of modernity is Gnostic. Thomas F. Bertonneau gives an introduction to the crisis of the rise of Gnosticism in our age.

Gnosticism from a Non-Voegelinian Perspective, Part I
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4440
Gnosticism from a Non-Voegelinian Perspective, Part II
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4452
Gnosticism from a Non-Voegelinian Perspective, Part III (Gnosticism in Modern Scholarship)
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4461
Gnosticism from a Non-Voegelinian Perspective, Part IV (Revisiting Voegelin)
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4466

Leftism and Gnosticism are one and the same. I suggest you look into this.