The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Evolution and Refrigerators: New Insights
🔊 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

“Behavioral genetics” is a science that seeks to demonstrate a physiological and genetic basis for human behavior—for liberalism versus conservatism and for religion versus irreligion, among countless other traits.

Some of it is well established, though not known to the general public, and other parts more-or-less established. Inevitably all of it is attributed to evolution and natural selection, the relevant discipline being called “evolutionary psychology.” The more serious devotees insist that all human traits are heritable—i.e., genetic—as well as derived by natural selection.

Perhaps because I am genetically obtuse, there are parts of the evolutionary tale that I don’t understand. Herewith some questions I am powerless to answer, in hopes that someone will help me. I look for concrete, demonstrable, provable answers, not vague, speculative, metaphysical ones.

(1) I do not understand populational altruism from the standpoint of behavioral genetics or evolutionary psychology. Populations in numerical decline—the French, for example—intentionally import genetically very distinct and faster-breeding peoples. Sweden, perhaps the whitest of nations, deliberately imports black Africans, and Germany, Moslems. The United States focuses its domestic policy on the upkeep of a black population.

What selective pressures bring this about? What is the reproductive advantage for the host populations? And since all traits are genetic, not having children must be the result of natural selection. That is, the reproductive advantage of not having children was so great that it spread rapidly through whole populations.

(2 ) Human evolution is said to be “ongoing”, and “both copious and rapid.” While any dog-breeder can attest that selection, natural or otherwise, can produce great genetic changes, I wonder why 2500 years of this rapid natural selection haven’t.

Romans and Greeks in the statuary of Praxiteles and Phidias, as well as Roman copies of Greek works, look just like us. Writers and thinkers of classical times both in style and cast of mind read like moderns: Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Archimedes, Julius Caesar, Ovid, Papinian, Ulpian, all the gang. The sense of humor is the same: Juvenal could be Mencken’s (very) long-lost brother. The ancients spent their time as we do, making war on anyone within reach. Twenty-five hundred years of rapid evolution seem to have produced a net of zero.

(3) Does not rapid evolution require intense selective pressure? What are these pressures? That is, pressures strong enough to cause greater rates of reproduction? In societies such as the white European, nearly everyone marries, nearly everyone has small families, and nearly everyone lives past reproductive age. This would seem to reduce selective pressures based on differential rates of survival and reproduction.

Would not such evolution as still occurred do so through things like assortative mating, in which for example the smart marry the smart, producing a caste of the increasingly bright? Do not liberals marry liberals, and conservatives conservatives, thus concentrating the genes for their respective furies? One does not easily imagine Bernie Sanders (or anyone, for that matter) marrying Ann Coulter.

(4) I do not understand the behavioral genetics of sexual selection.

For example, why do women have breasts? They are, as we say, a waste of metabolic resources, unnecessary for nursing young (neither chimps nor dogs have breasts except when nursing), and make running difficult (we have sports bras for a reason). That is, they are both useless and detrimental. Why do they remain in the population?

Well, see, it’s because men like them. This allows well-endowed women to mate with better men, and have more offspring. (The idea that a comparatively planar women can’t get laid suggests that behavioral geneticists need to get out more, but never mind.) Then why in 2500 years have not big hooters become general in the population? Or even common? And of course if they did become general they would lose their selective advantage since all women would have them. They would then constitute a species-wide disadvantage.

As a minor matter, I do not see how the masculine preference for big ones came about. In a population of cave people with flat women, presumably the response to the mutational appearance of biggies would have been, “Geez, Urk Urk, what’s wrong with Sally?” “Beats me, Ralph. Maybe it’s cancer.”

That is, big breasts would only be an advantage in the presence of a preexisting preference for them. But why a preference before there was anything for it to prefer?

(5) It seems to me that evolution currently takes place chiefly not through selective pressures but through the lack of them. For example, diabetes is said to be becoming much more common in because medicine keeps diabetics alive long enough to reproduce. Another example is intelligence, which is said to have fallen fifteen points of average IQ because the stupid dysgenically have many more children than the smart. (Of course, proponents of the Flynn Effect say that IQ has risen fifteen points. Either would have had huge observable effects, and hasn’t, but never mind.)

In short we are seeing the survival of the least fit, in both individuals and races, which seems a bit bass-ackward in Darwinian terms. And, again, since all traits are genetic, failure to reproduce and the encouragement of deleterious traits are products of natural selection.

(6) If traits that make for survival spread through a population, it follows that traits that do not spread do not make for survival. These would seem to include intelligence, physical prowess, and acute senses. Genes exist in the population—mutations not needed—for the phenomenal physical plant of Mohammed Ali, the intelligence of Hawking, the eyesight of Ted Williams, and so on. They remain exceedingly rare, and not obviously more common than they were in the time of Thucydides.

ORDER IT NOW

Meanwhile, traits of little or no advantage do become general. The epicanthial fold, for example, which makes the Chinese slant-eyed. This is said to be of advantage in survival by, according to who you talk to, either conserving energy or protecting the eyes from icy winds. I am unaware of actual evidence for either, but then I am unaware of many things.

If any advantage exists, it is vanishingly small. Do we really believe that people with squinty eyes had more children than the merely round-eyed?

(7) I do not understand the concept of the “dysgenic” and the “eugenic.” Both seem to imply value judgements–that evolution is going in a good or a bad direction. This smacks of teleology, entelechy. I thought evolution had no direction and that it could be neither good nor bad. It is the mindless, undirected adjustment of a system to its circumstances.

For example, the anthropologist Peter Frost argues, perhaps correctly, that North Europeans have become less violent because the hanging over centuries of violent criminals has reduced the genetic tendency to violence. He regards this as an improvement—as do I, if it has happened. But how is it an improvement in the sense of evolution, which has no such conception of betterment?

(8) Again, some behavioral geneticists assert that all human behavior is heritable—i.e., is to a large extent determined by genetics. Our behavior changes as our genes evolve. Weill, all right. You can breed dogs to be aggressive or friendly.

Yet obviously many sorts of human behavior change far too profoundly and rapidly for natural selection to be responsible. For example, Europe has gone from very to barely religious, sexual mores in America from highly restrictive to anything goes, family size in Mexico from fifteen-and-starve to two-and-university.

This, say the genetic determinists, happens because genes express themselves differently in different environments: same genes but different circumstances.

This means, if I do not misunderstand them, that genes (inferred rather than demonstrated) for one behavior are, under the influence of unspecified changes in the environment, genes for precisely opposite behavior—from belief to disbelief, large families to small, prudishness to libertinism. And what pressures cause this turnaround?

Refrigerators.

Yes. If a Mexican girl from a family of fifteen moves into the middle class and gets a refrigerator (and simultaneously the means to support a large family of her own) she has two children and sends them to university. Here is a fruitful field for further study: The Darwinian effects of Kelvinators. Exactly how kitchen appliances drastically alter the expression of genes for reproduction eludes me. It is also curious that prosperity is a contraceptive: Reproduction is inversely proportional to the means of supporting it.

Clearly I do not understand evolutionary psychology. This, I suspect, can equally be said of evolutionary psychologists.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Cameron says:

    Juvenal could be Mencken’s (very) long-lost brother.

    Fred Reed could easily be Mencken’s son.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  2. Garbage article. Only wish I had the five minutes I spent reading it back.

    Lay off the sauce, Fred.

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  3. Renoman says:

    I love ya Fred, you have a fantastic sense of humor and are a great source of smiles in this lonely World!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  4. Oldeguy says:

    Another Fred Gem- keep ’em comin’.
    I have no idea whether the Evolutionists are right ( and I suspect that they themselves are less certain than they let on ) but their frequently tortured explanations of how current reality came about often descend into silliness; a simple ” Gee, sure beats me ” would bring the theory into less disrepute.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  5. Why would a poor Mexican girl have 15 kids and that same girl, married into and acculturated to the middle class, have only two. It’s probably not the refrigerator or even the air conditioning. It’s that the poor version of Rosa knows that if she has 15 kids, the chances that one or two of them will have happy, prosperous lives are pretty good. Her genes “understand” that Pedro and Lupe will die in drug war crossfires, Fernando from whooping cough, Miguel and Rosalita from chicken pox or croup, and on and on, and only Federico and Consuela will graduate high school, find work, happiness, love and fulfillment to nurture Rosa through her old age. However, rich Rosa STARTS with Federico and Consuela. She doesn’t have to pop out 13 relative failures to get the rocking chair. Does this make sense? Genes are selfish; they are ONLY interesting in passing themselves along.

    • Replies: @dcite
  6. my understanding is this. the smarter a person is, the more that person realizes how big of a responsibility it is to raise a child right. the astronomical costs. the time a child needs for 18 years.

    the key word is raising a child “right”

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  7. 5371 says:

    It’s funny because it’s true.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  8. Not all traits that were adaptive to a previous environment remain so in a new environment. Evolutionary readaptation takes time and a species may not have time; most species that have ever existed are now extinct. Homo sapiens are not likely to be an exception to this rule.

  9. Booji Boy says:

    The secret about De-Evolution was made public back in the Seventies:

  10. I don’t know the answers to your queries but I will say this; along with plane glass and window screens the refrigerator is one of the unheralded and under-appreciated essentials to and in modern, civilized life.

    In my misspent youth I tried living in the wild while holding a part time job in the city–yeah, I know, that’s cheating, but at least I tried. And failed.

    Because my food was always spoiling.

    Try living without a refrigerator. It’s tough.

    So, you may be onto something with the Kelvinator stuff.

    • Replies: @Demeter
    , @Max Payne
  11. polistra says:

    Question 1 is easy: it’s not the PEOPLE of Germany and Sweden who invite Arabs, and it’s not the PEOPLE of US who invite Mexicans. It’s the governments, whose sole purpose is to destroy their own people.

    The other questions are genuinely hard.

    My best guess: Cultural tendencies are not genetic. Individual tendencies are genetic but not absolute. They can be pulled one way or the other by nearby influences.

    Individuals are like low-Q resonant circuits, favoring one frequency when free-standing but moving up or down when coupled with nearby resonators. When you have thousands of resonators and dozens of influences like contraceptives and refrigerators all coupled to varying degrees, the overall tuning is quite sharp, and may be far removed from the initial tuning of most individuals.

  12. TG says:

    Here is another angle.

    There are (roughly) two strategies to reproduction: have lots of offspring and don’t pay any attention to them, and have only a few and give them a lot of resources. Both strategies have their strengths.

    One notes that wolves do not breed like rodents – presumably because a small wolf pack that is well fed and strong can be more successful than a larger wolf pack that is sick and malnourished. Until humans came along, wolves were pretty much the most widespread and successful terrestrial predator. No, ‘the more the merrier’ does not always work.

    Now with humans and modern civilization, limiting family size produces societies that are vastly stronger and more powerful than societies that (please pardon my French) encourage people to breed like rodents. I mean, compare 1940’s United States with China or India of that era: no comparison.

    There is one problem. The rich in low-fertility societies have an individual incentive to import the surplus labor of high-fertility societies (these latter could never invade on their own). This is the modern weakness of low-fertility societies: all that prosperity makes it overwhelmingly tempting for the rich to cancel it out and thereby make enormous amounts of short-term profit.

    • Agree: Travis, Seneca
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @Jesse
  13. @Son of Dixie

    Fred is following his normal policy of mocking evolution and so called “evolutionary scientists.” There is much that is mock worthy in evolution as taught by the current crop of pseudo-scientists.

  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Booji Boy

    “…every man, woman and mutant…”

    You gotta love that, given the gay marriage and tranny hissy fits of late. Perhaps public restrooms can in the future be labeled Men, Women and Mutants. These guys were 40 years ahead of their time!

  15. @polistra

    Hello, polistra! I like your

    Individuals are like low-Q resonant circuits, favoring one frequency when free-standing but moving up or down when coupled with nearby resonators.

    I suggest you thinking over not only about individual eigen-frequencies of those resonators, omega=[1/sqrt(L*C)], but also about their individual impedances Z= sqrt(L/C). If you couple two perfectly resonant oscillators, for example, ones with the same omegas, but with strongly different impedances, there is effectively no resonant transfer of energy. Imagine coupling two LC-circuits: one with large L and small C, the other with small L , but large C. They may be in perfect resonance, but there will be no transfer of energy between them. Your Q-factor in case of RLC-circuit equals Q=Z/R.
    I have no idea, what may be the analog of impedance in human interactions.
    My best to you. I.f.f.U.

  16. Demeter says:
    @Threecranes

    Try living without a refrigerator. It’s tough.

    It can be done. We’ve lived without fridges for a lot longer than we’ve had them, after all. Agrarian lifestyle with opportunistic hunting/gathering, eating seasonally, and preservation techniques such as drying, pickling, salting/curing and digging a root cellar. Of course, if you run into a string of bad luck, you may gruesomely starve.

    Naturally, you won’t be living this lifestyle in Bed-Stuy.

    Many people in the UK live with what Americans would consider a dorm-room fridge. Hilariously tiny. They manage because they can easily shop several times a week.

  17. (1) I do not understand populational altruism from the standpoint of behavioral genetics or evolutionary psychology. Populations in numerical decline—the French, for example—intentionally import genetically very distinct and faster-breeding peoples. Sweden, perhaps the whitest of nations, deliberately imports black Africans, and Germany, Moslems. The United States focuses its domestic policy on the upkeep of a black population.

    What selective pressures bring this about? What is the reproductive advantage for the host populations? And since all traits are genetic, not having children must be the result of natural selection. That is, the reproductive advantage of not having children was so great that it spread rapidly through whole populations.

    I’ve written about this here.

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/25/altruism-and-ethnocentrism/

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/03/17/genetic-similarity-theory-as-a-cause-for-ethnocentrism/

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/20/whats-the-cause-of-the-cucking-of-europe/

    It’s basically innate altruism run amuck. They do it because of media programming. Since prosocial behavior can be mediated through the media, the same can be said for the opposite. Also, telling Europeans they’re bad people for what our ancestors did is yet another reason. So they feel they have to atone for these things.

    It also has to do with, for instance, Sweden’s individuality. Looking at a collectivism and individualism map of Europe, we can see that it roughly matches up to the current situation. The more collectivist, religious countries are fighting back harder than the more individualistic and atheistic countries (southern and eastern Europe, Northern Europe respectively).

    Rushton also brings up in a paper that Europeans choosing not to have kids may be an extreme way to have control over their environment.

    In Rushton’s AmRen talk on genetic similarity theory and ethnocentrism, he says that the negative white birth trend can be reversed.

    In pre-WWII Germany, Goebbels showed German women with children who were happy. This, in turn, had a positive effect on the German birth rate. More children were had, and at the same time nationalism shot up as did out-group derogation.

    All we need to do to reverse these current trends is to show positive pro-White things in the media. Once that happens, this negative trend can and will reverse.

    For example, the anthropologist Peter Frost argues, perhaps correctly, that North Europeans have become less violent because the hanging over centuries of violent criminals has reduced the genetic tendency to violence. He regards this as an improvement—as do I, if it has happened. But how is it an improvement in the sense of evolution, which has no such conception of betterment?

    I agree with Peter. Though the culling of the violent people led to, in my opinion, part of the problem in Europe we have with no enough men fighting back.

    It’s a double edged sword in that case.

    This, say the genetic determinists, happens because genes express themselves differently in different environments: same genes but different circumstances.

    Steven Pinker recently refuted this.

    He says that we choose our environment based on our genes.

    http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/11/behaviorgenesenvironment-vindication/

    Genes: Molecular biologists have appropriated the term “gene” to refer to the stretches of DNA that code for a protein. Unfortunately, this sense differs from the one used in population genetics, behavioral genetics and evolutionary theory – namely, any information carried that’s transmittable across generations and has sustained effects on the phenotype. This includes any aspect of DNA that can affect gene expression, and is closer to what is meant by “innate” than genes in the molecular biologists’ narrow sense. The confusion between the two leads to innumerable red herrings in discussions of out makeup, such as the banality that the expression of genes (in the sense of protein-coding stretches of DNA) is regulated by signals from the environment. How else could it be? The alternative is that every cell synthesizes every protein all the time! The epigenetics bubble inflated by the science media is based on a similar confusion.

    Environment: This term for the inputs to an organism is also misleading. Of all the energy impinging on an organism, only a subset, processed and transformed in complex ways, has an effect on its subsequent information processing. Which information is taken in, how it’s transformed, and how it affects the organism (that is, the way the organism learns) all depend on the organisms innate organization. To speak of the environment “determining” or “shaping” behavior is unperspicuous.

    Gene-environment interactions in this technical sense, confusingly, go into the “unique environmental” component, because they’re not the same (on average) in siblings growing up in the same family. Just as confusingly, “interactions” in the commonsense – namely, that a person with a given genotype is predictably affected by the environment – goes into the “heritability” component, because the quantitative genetics measures only correlations. This confound is behind the finding that the heritability of intelligence increases, and the effects of shared environment decrease, over a person’s lifetime. One explanation is that genes have effects late in life, but another is that people with a given genotype place themselves in environments that indulge their inborn tastes and talents. The “environment” increasingly depends on their genes, rather than being the cause of exogenous behavior. (Emphasis mine.) (pg 188-191 This Idea Must Die)

  18. @Astuteobservor II

    Smarter people have less children. Dumber people have more.

    Parental involvement doesn’t matter. Save isolation or extreme abuse, parental socialization don’t matter to how a child turns out.

  19. @TG

    Aka r/K Life History Theory.

  20. The more intense and constant is the selection, the greater the specialization and the emergence of idiosyncrasies, which are rare in other populations, and become common on the hypothetical population.

    Moral values on eugenics and dysgenics are unfortunately very vague, for a good part of their defenders and when they specify, it is clear that are influenced by religion.
    In a perfect society, the rigor of science and the vital necessity of philosophy will be in full harmony.

    The problem about ALL behavioral traits is that all them have their dark side.

  21. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @5371

    It’s not funny because its bollocks.

  22. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @polistra

    You got the answer to (1) right.

  23. Rehmat says:

    What is behind West’s demographic decline? Nope, Mr. Reed it’s not due to Muslim or Black immigration. It’s due to the so-called “Enlightenment” – LGBT, pornography and break-down of White marriages.

    The female population in most of western countries is higher than the male population. In Russia, there are 11 million surplus women (fertility rate at 1.3%), in the US (4 million, fertility rate at 1.3%)), Britain (1.1 million, fertility rate at less than 2%), Germany (1.6 million, fertility rate at 1.4%), France (1.7 million, fertility rate at 2%), Canada (320,000, fertility rate at 1.5%) and so on. On top of that add over 30 million non-child-bearing gay and lesbian population in Europe, the US and Canada.

    Contrary to that, female population in majority of 57 Muslim states is less than the male population.

    Interestingly, the first western political leader to campaign for polygamy was no other than Duma Deputy Speaker and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Vladimir Zhirinovsky. He actively crusaded for the legalization of polygamy in Russia, but failed. He honestly believed that with eleven million surplus women and the deepening demographic crisis in Russia, polygamy would go a long way to fight the demographic decline.

    Olga Gumanova’s article entitled Four wives always better than one?, published on Russian website, Pravda.Ru on April 13, 2011 – makes an interesting reading.

    “Regardless of age, the first wife has the title of “senior” and the fourth – the “younger”. Other wives are referred to in order. According to the tradition, if the entire family lives together, the responsibility of the younger wife is the education of all children, regardless of who their biological mother is. The second and third wives have to take care of the household, and the eldest of all directs and assigns duties.

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/04/24/polygamy-and-wests-demographic-decline/

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  24. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    that North Europeans have become less violent because the hanging over centuries of violent criminals has reduced the genetic tendency to violence. He regards this as an improvement—as do I, if it has happened. But how is it an improvement

    They became less violent? The twentieth century had mega-violence in the two world wars where they set all-time records for barbaric behavior. The killing of criminals produced a conformist, follow-orders type of population who engage in violence only when told to by their bosses. No free-booting violence allowed, just a do-as-you’re-told type personality. When ordered to roll over and lay down by Merkel-typed then that’s what most will do.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @another fred
  25. @Booji Boy

    There’s an interesting set of lyrics toward the end (to the best of my understanding):

    God made man
    But he used the monkey to do it.
    Apes in the plan
    We’re all here to prove it.
    I can walk like an ape,
    Talk like an ape,
    I can do what a monkey can do.
    God made man
    But a monkey supplied the glue.

    They just don’t write songs like that anymore. Some would say “thank God.”

  26. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rehmat

    In Russia, there are 11 million surplus women (fertility rate at 1.3%), in the US (4 million, fertility rate at 1.3%)) …

    Do try to get at least the basic facts right. Russia’s fertility rate was 1.78 in 2015, for the US the number last year was 1.86. Presumably all your other numbers are wrong too.

  27. This was what made me a fan of Fred and it was a masterpiece. Unfortunately devolution seems to have developed.

    “ Wars are seductive as women in the night. Past midnight in February of 1967 we stood, the platoon and I, on the flight line at El Toro Marine Air Station, gateway to Asia. On the tarmac big jets howled and moaned. The smell of burned jet fuel blew in the Pacific breeze. We felt the exhilaration of being part of something huge moving in the darkness, of going to the action, of leaving the mundane. The attraction of war verges on the lascivious. It gets into your blood.”

    The Wars: Maybe We Could Go Bowling Insted (sic)
    Posted on February 17, 2003 by Fred Reed

    http://fredoneverything.org/the-wars-maybe-we-could-go-bowling-insted/

  28. “Europe has gone from very to barely religious”

    Unless you consider Leftism a religion. Its not that the religious impulse is gone. It’s been rerouted by our (((enemies))). The same may be said for many “traits”. We call the trait “religiosity” but that is only our descriptor. It may be something else that until recently was manifested in religion.

    The breast thing is similar. What we want is “beauty” and “fertility”. What we consider to be “beautiful” and “fertile” can change. But the impulse remains the same.

  29. @RaceRealist88

    Parental involvement doesn’t matter.

    um, I 1000% disagree with that.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  30. @Jacques Sheete

    war is only that way for the side that has overwhelming edge. when you can bomb and kill from 2000 ft up in the air in safety, yea, I can see how a maniac would be excited.

  31. @Astuteobservor II

    Care to elaborate? I did say save for isolation and extreme abuse.

  32. @Oldeguy

    …but their frequently tortured explanations of how current reality came about often descend into silliness.

    They’re just modern day “just so” stories. (‘How the elephant got his nose’, etc.)

  33. @RaceRealist88

    Parental involvement doesn’t matter. Save isolation or extreme abuse, parental socialization don’t matter to how a child turns out.

    Comments like these is why they shouldn’t let teenagers post on the Internet.

  34. @anonymous coward

    I’m not a teenager. But yea, since you don’t agree with me, I MUST be a teenager.

    Parental socialization doesn’t matter in terms of IQ nor criminalization.

    See Charles Murray that parenting doesn’t do anything for IQ, save for isolation and extreme abuse (Jensen, 1998, as well) and for parenting having no effect on criminality see Kevin Beaver (2015) for that one.

  35. joe webb says:

    Fred on whatever..” .. .or liberalism versus conservatism and for religion versus irreligion, among countless other traits.”

    Fred, you “trait” is a misapplication of the biological term. Politics , etc. does not have ‘traits’….but your biological trait is one of humpty-dumpty…a word means exactly what I say it means, nothing more, nothing less. It is called pride in the service of ego.

    Joe Webb

  36. joe webb says:
    @anonymous coward

    indeed parental involvement does not count for much of anything, except extreme neglect, poor nutrition, etc. This is abundantly documented these days, per identical twin studies, etc.

    The putative adults who chatter about environment and loving family, etc…do not have children, and have been spared another dose of reality thereby. They can go on and on with their humanist drivel…I suggest an antidote, adopt a black baby.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  37. @RaceRealist88

    Save isolation or extreme abuse, parental socialization don’t matter to how a child turns out.

    While I agree with your general premise, I think “extreme abuse” is overstated. All it takes is a moderate amount of neglect or conflict to disrupt the parent-child bond and change the trajectory of a child’s life.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  38. @joe webb

    Oh, no!! The babe would turn out just like a white babe! All it needs is a good environment!

    That’s what always cracks me up about transracial adoption studies. Liberals then point to how the “black kids did better”, without realizing that the one variable that the black mother was taken out as a variable and a white mother was out in its place. They fail to realize that by attempting to use this example that they’re just proving us hereditarians right.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  39. @anonymous

    In terms of daily criminality, europeans become less violent.

  40. expeedee says:

    Evolution has very long time frames and sometimes it’s hard to understand the dynamics when your nose is pressed too close to the glass.

  41. @anonymous

    They became less violent? The twentieth century had mega-violence in the two world wars where they set all-time records for barbaric behavior.

    Wrong. As a percentage of population involved in fighting and as a percentage killed the 20th century cannot hold a candle to the past. This century, however, has a shot, but it will be impersonal killing.

  42. @Jacques Sheete

    Now it’s all about click bait, for Fred and all the others who try to survive by writing.

  43. Fred, now STOP it! Leave those little HBD lambs alone, you meanie!

  44. Rurik says:

    The more serious devotees insist that all human traits are heritable—i.e., genetic—as well as derived by natural selection.

    what kind of trait isn’t?

    Sweden, perhaps the whitest of nations, deliberately imports black Africans,

    What selective pressures bring this about?

    it’s called the cuckoo bird syndrome. Evolutionary Psychologist Kevin MacDonald has written books about this. One tribe of humans has convinced a second tribe of humans to raise the offspring of yet another. It’s an evolutionary strategy of the first tribe to get the second tribe to weaken themselves by serving the third tribe(s) so that the first tribe can dominate the second tribe it considers a rival. And it’s working extremely well.

    What selective pressures bring this about? What is the reproductive advantage for the host populations?

    it’s their ‘compassion gene’. The gene that tells them to be altruistic. It started out well enough, evolution-wise so that the members of the tribe would sacrifice some and help others of the tribe for the good of the tribe. But today it’s been manipulated into a suicide gene. Universal suffrage didn’t help on this score.

    Twenty-five hundred years of rapid evolution seem to have produced a net of zero.

    I disagree. Just consider the statues all over Europe of the proud warriors of the Bronze age, spear or sword in hand, and the chariots and the horses wielding to the iron will of these magnificent people. And then fast forward to Pajama Boy or Kanye, and you begin to see just how far we have come in such a short time.

    Does not rapid evolution require intense selective pressure? What are these pressures?

    yes, and those pressures are being exerted today. In the reverse. Evolution requires struggle, and for the last hundred years or so, since the Industrial Revolution, things like machines and mass-production and automated farming and medicine have made survival very easy indeed. In fact effortless. So now we’re in the process of moving evolution backwards. Keeping those who should have been winnowed out, alive and breeding more of the same.

    For example, why do women have breasts?

    not just breasts, but a nice round ass too! All evolutionary developments to signal a woman’s reproductive health.

    In short we are seeing the survival of the least fit, in both individuals and races, which seems a bit bass-ackward in Darwinian terms.

    already covered that one above

    phenomenal physical plant of Mohammed Ali, the intelligence of Hawking, the eyesight of Ted Williams, and so on. They remain exceedingly rare

    this stuff will all be engineered soon. The miracle of the human genome project

    hanging over centuries of violent criminals has reduced the genetic tendency to violence.

    But how is it an improvement in the sense of evolution, which has no such conception of betterment?

    good point. the violent asshole gene may be an evolutionary necessity when your tribe is under attack from a competing tribe of violent assholes

    Europe has gone from very to barely religious, sexual mores in America from highly restrictive to anything goes,

    first the Industrial Revolution and then the Information Era It has wreaked havoc on traditional mores

    just some bullshit I wanted to toss into onto the pyre since I used to pay some attention to this stuff

    Always an entertaining read Fred!

  45. Da-Mith says:

    Many visitors to this site realise that a great deal of the “common narrative” is false. I hope that one day the fairy tale of evolution is exposed for what it is.. another establishment lie. Please do not assume that I am a religious man. The “god” theory holds no credence with me and upon close examination, its followers appears even sillier than the evolution crowd. Clearly we as a species , are devolving, each successive generation a lessor quality than the one before. Sure you will be able to cite many examples to contradict this thinking… but overall the evidence is overwhelming. We are in a state of decay. Another re-set is due, however this will not halt the deterioration. My point being that any articles/ conclusions/ studies etc based on “evolution” are just a waste…froth and bubbles…

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @RaceRealist88
  46. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Da-Mith

    Clearly we as a species , are devolving, each successive generation a lessor quality than the one before.

    The transformation that you consider degeneration is, nevertheless, the result of natural selection. Welfare mothers, for example, insofar as they are more fertile than their working sisters, are better adapted to the prevailing environment, however, insane the creation of such an environment may be. Therefore, an increase in in the prevalence of welfare-dependency traits constitutes evolution. Such evolution, which you consider degeneration, is not so rare. Consider the nervous system of the tape worm — assuming that a tape worm has a nervous system, which I doubt.

  47. @CanSpeccy

    I heard from a close relative about famous Caenorhabditis elegans , a free-living (not parasitic), transparent nematode (roundworm), about 1 mm in length, that lives in temperate soil environments. […] The male C. elegans, for example, has 1031 cells, a number which does not change after cell division ceases at the end of the larval period. Growth is solely due to an increase in the size of individual cells. Considerable percentage of its cells constitute nervous system. See details in
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caenorhabditis_elegans

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  48. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Immigrant from former USSR

    The male C. elegans, for example, has 1031 cells

    That’s very interesting, because, according to The Mind of the Worm 321 of those cells are neurons. So if the cell number ratio can be taken as a proxy for mass ratio, that means that roundworms have a brain to body mass ratio vastly superior to humans, i.e., 29% for C. elegans versus a paltry 2.5% for humans.

    To look on the bright site, we do have more neurons than a round worm, by a factor of about 30 million. Still, we shouldn’t feel too cocky about that: an African elephant has three times as many neurons as we do.

  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Renoman

    Fred is tied in knots about whether religion or science will bring peace of mind. Both are but myth and theory. For simplicity go back to ancient Grecian Philosophy:

    Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that what he called “pleasure” is the greatest good, but the way to attain such pleasure is to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one’s desires. This led one to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia). The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure to be the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life makes it different from “hedonism” as it is commonly understood.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  50. @Da-Mith

    Please posit another theory that has as much evidence backing it as evolution does.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  51. joe webb says:
    @RaceRealist88

    actually, the trans-racial adoptions result in no improvement in IQ for blacks. As for behavior, I have not seen anything on it. I doubt adult behavior is any different while child behavior is somewhat impacted. The main thing is the onset of puberty, when all animals get a bit wild-er.

    Since blacks go into puberty one year earlier than whites, consistent with other physical developmental stages which appear earlier in Blacks than whites and asians, the wild side is set loose earlier. Add that to low intelligence and ….whamo…the jig is up, for anyone, but especially blacks.

    JW

  52. Max Payne says:
    @Threecranes

    Yeah because beef jerky, canned beans and dried biscuits need refrigeration.

    It’s as if none of you have left your little backwater villages to see the rest of the world which survives with such innovations as powdered milk and dried fruits.

  53. @joe webb

    I put “parent child bond failure” in Google and got 17,700,00 results. I then put “attachment bond failure” and got 22,700,000. I’m sure there are many duplications in the result, but you could start there.

    Wouldn’t hurt to check on “Harry Harlow.”

  54. @joe webb

    any evidence for this?

    Try a scientific experiment: have some kids of your own and find out. It’s obvious you’ve never been around real-life kids, so you probably shouldn’t be commenting on the issue.

  55. dcite says:
    @Otto the P

    Except nowadays, even among poor Mexicans, all 15 of those children would live to grow up. Might lose a few in drug wars but probably not disease. It takes a while for the “genese” to get the message I guess. Commercials for birth control help.

  56. @Anonymous

    Pish. Epicurus is a toad, and Epicureanism was and is crap.

    The real Stoic ethicist was Epictetus.

    • Replies: @5371
  57. @RaceRealist88

    Please posit another theory that has as much evidence backing it as evolution does.

    Or as much verifiable predictive accuracy. There might be some mathematical theory that has a better lock on validity than evolutionary theory, but not much else.

  58. pyrrhus says:

    Pathological altruism was selected for in western Europe over a period of centuries, probably through the mechanism of boiling off (emigration or execution)(and may I offer one more tribute to Henry Harpending) the more violent and nonconformist part of the population…Prof. Clark’s work, and that of JayMan and HBDChick, speaks volumes on this process. and was pro survival when populations were immobile, since there was a very low crime rate and much social cohesion….But when the bacteria of violent, non-assimilating immigrants showed up, the native population had no defenses.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  59. 5371 says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Epictetus added nothing new.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  60. @pyrrhus

    Stop with this crap ”pathological altruism”, the reasons to the western ”decadence’ is not just genetic or fundamentally genetic but structural. The naive/stupid and (other) psychopaths is in the power and they were placed there.

    Prove that pathological altruism really exist. Many of this people are not toxicaly pathological-altruistic (many them WORK/with money as SWJ) specially because they tend to hate the demonized groups even the vulnerable part of this groups as poor white people.

    ”We” know very well why and who is behind this. Pathological altruism is a excuse for something more deep about the own moral weaknesses of the west and because the opportunistic co-evolutives who know very well about it.

    Stupid and naive people are always suicidal-mode in a ”sick” or in a ”healthy” society.

    It was necessary to use the weak and foolish Westerners to bring entire nations to this path.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HR9vqx9oTQ

    Despise huge positive propaganda pro-capital-ism in this cartoom.

  61. @5371

    Epictetus added nothing new.

    Epicurus was wrong; Epictetus was right. As to what application the word “new” might have, hell, be my guest.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @5371
  62. geokat62 says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Epicurus was wrong; Epictetus was right.

    I’m very interested in understanding the reasons for your thinking so. I’ve provided a response to the question “What are the main differences between epicureanism and stoicism?” that I recently found on Quora. Perhaps you could use this as a basis for explaining your position so I and others might benefit from this discussion?

    Thanks, in advance.

    What are the main differences between epicureanism and stoicism?
    John Brady, Philosophosaur
    12k Views • John has 4 endorsements in Philosophy.
    John is a Most Viewed Writer in Greek Philosophy.
    The garden and the veranda.

    The Epicureans

    The Epicureans were materialists in the modern, scientific sense. They accepted the physics of Democritus that the universe was composed entirely of empty space filled with atoms of differing shapes and weights that moved in non-linear paths (swerving) smashing together and latching into greater structures, composing the universe. The universe is infinite in space, time, and the number of atoms (mass) but finite in regards to the number of unique types of atoms (diversity). They believed in thermodynamic entropy (it’s easier to destroy arrangements of atoms than for the arrangements to be made, thus the universe is ageing towards a state of complete disorganization), and the conservation of energy (atoms, literally “uncuttables” could not be destroyed or created).

    They didn’t know about waves, they thought visual phenomena were caused by light atoms smashing into objects and causing atoms on the surface of the objects to be exploded off in thin films that resembled the object which, on account of their thinness, could float great distances, at incredible speed, invisibly until they were grasped by the sensitive eye/mind (the mind was composed of the smoothest, and smallest atoms, so it was sensitive to these thin films of atoms). They believed that thoughts and imagination were caused by these ambient fragments of object-films floating into the head, kind of like all of the tv, radio and wifi waves swirling around us today, with the mind then attracting more of the same films from the same type of origin (train of thought).

    The ethics that went along with this was based on the fact that they did not believe in an after-life, or sensible spiritual realm (your constituent atoms would be dispersed when your body disintegrated and would go on to form into other structures), so they took empirical facts with deadly seriousness. Pain and suffering were bad, happiness and fulfillment were good. It’s a certain medieval christian bias that led to the interpretation of Epicureanism as the pursuit of sensual pleasure. The Epicureans understood that sensual pleasure was fleeting, and would quickly move over into its opposite if chased too vehemently. What is important is the Greek term Eudaimonia, which is often translated as happiness, but has little to do today with what we call happiness (the bubbly, pleasurable sensation that accompanies agreeable outcomes and events). Perhaps a better translation would be “Flourishing of life”. A key difference is that for the Greeks “the good life” didn’t end after you were dead, but also included your legacy moving down the generations, your influence and effect on the world. It would take many years after a person’s death to determine if they had in fact lived the good life. Accordingly, the Epicureans advocated moderation in things, and a balanced, “agreeable” life that pursued the “higher pleasures” of fraternity, self improvement, and freedom from the fear of death, which they thought would result in the freedom of all fear.

    They saw anxiety as the great thorn in mankind’s side, and their philosophical project was to rid themselves of it, identifying that anxiety had its root in the fear of death, but as fear of death only makes sense if one believes in the permanence of the soul, and/or living a life steeped in regret (as in the regret of missed opportunities), acknowledging atomic materialism (when I am here death is not, when death is here I am not) and living life to its fullest (Carpe diem, Sieze the day!) one could have no reason to fear death, so could live their one and only life in satisfaction, and upon their death bed have no fear for what will happen next, and no regret over what they should have done.

    The Stoics

    The stoics had a different spin on things. They believed that the universe was fundamentally rational. Where the Epicureans thought the universe of atoms was accidental (lots of blind collisions, lacking in Telos, or “purpose”) but also necessary, deterministic (the atoms moved on non-random paths that determine their collisions), the Stoics believed in a fate that underlay all of nature which was developed logically. Where the Epicureans believed there was only atoms and void, the Stoics believed there was only inert matter (bodies) and logos (reason) that organized matter’s motions and fate. Logos was the structuring principle, the how and the why of matter, and, like a deductive argument, had its own inner necessity. So, they too were determinists (a bit of an over-simplification), but for different reasons. They saw the study of logic/mathematics as essential, as it revealed the deep underlying structure of the universe as it was developing. If the Epicureans were chemists and biologists, the Stoics were theoretical physicists. Like the Epicureans they saw the study of philosophy as essential to alleviating suffering and living the good life, but had different ideas of what this consisted in.

    Because the universe is developing in a rational, linear way, the best course of action was to “follow nature”, making one’s action be in accord to the developing rationality that supervened in the universe of inert matter, because it was useless to be in opposition to it, (this was their definition of virtue, an act in accord with the universal developing logos). There was no higher good than (this) virtue; pain and pleasure exerted influence on us, and we were rationally inclined towards and repulsed by them, but the stroke of virtue in accord with the grand developing universal rationality overrode all considerations of “pleasantness” (allowing a certain “soldier’s reading” of stoicism, valuable to ancient Rome). The problem was divining what, in each particular situation, this entailed. This required careful consideration, and vast knowledge of the situation and its antecedents, hence the classic image of the “stoic”, unmoved by impulse, and rationally considering each action. However, because the future is unknowable, complete surety can never be achieved, so it is also important to guard against disappointment and regret, to affirm one’s fate in the final outcome.

    The tenets were something like: “Whatever happens is for the best”, and “Whatever happens will happen”. Man’s problem is that he resists the unavoidable outcomes of fate, does not recognize the inherent good in it, and possesses interests contrary to it. However, as we cannot know the future it is difficult to avoid hoping or wishing for certain outcomes. The antidote for man’s woes was to limit this wishful thinking, and engage in careful study and consideration to try to make sure that one’s actions agree with the march of fate, which is the only path to success (being the only thing which will actually happen). Accordingly, the “Sage” never meets with misfortune, because all of their actions and plans and expectations are in line with the developing rationality of the universe so all come to fruition through the affirmation of their fate as it is revealed to them. They do not cry or gnash their teeth because the final outcome was the only outcome, and regretful ‘would of, could of, should of’s are irrational as they were never to be. The stoics reached much the same conclusions as the Chinese Taoists, though with different positive content. And perhaps that we talk of a certain “British Stoicism” and that the birth of modern Economics occurred in Britain shouldn’t be seen as too big a coincidence.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-epicureanism-and-stoicism

  63. @geokat62

    I’m very interested in understanding the reasons for your thinking so. I’ve provided a response to the question “What are the main differences between epicureanism and stoicism?” that I recently found on Quora. Perhaps you could use this as a basis for explaining your position so I and others might benefit from this discussion?

    I may provide some reasoned input at some time in the future, but I have other concerns at the moment, and, while I enjoy such discussion immensely, this is not a good time. I apologize for responding reflexively, here, to Epicurus, who I find remarkably uninspiring, compared to other ethical philosophy in the Stoic realm. I should have restrained the impulsive reaction until such time as I am able to give the topic its due.

    Regards,
    JJS

  64. 5371 says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I meant with respect to his Stoic predecessors. I assumed you knew that Epictetus came late in the history of Stoicism.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  65. rod1963 says:
    @anonymous coward

    A lot of HBD folks believe this tripe, it’s usually a excuse for letting their kids to be raised by Mexican nannies and the public school system while mom and dad have exciting corporate careers and massive ego trips. And by the time jack and jill turn 18 they’ll magically be getting scholarships to Harvard.

    Or worse gives a green light to outright child abuse. Basically clowns like Murray reduce parents to co-habitating sperm and egg donors who can neglect their kids as much as they want.

    Put another way, I would not take child rearing advice from childless intellectuals whom probably had more than a few screws lose.

  66. @geokat62

    Next time just post a link, perhaps a paragraph describing what the link is. Stay on topic as well.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  67. @5371

    I meant with respect to his Stoic predecessors. I assumed you knew that Epictetus came late in the history of Stoicism.

    Yes, come to think of it, I did know that. 😉

    I am engaged in a conversation on this topic with an old friend, at the moment. Like you, he has a tendency to get wrapped-up in what (IMO) is a bit of distraction like the history of the thought process. Personally, I involve myself directly with concepts presented, and pay little attention to sequence and development. I also restore old automobiles, and find little difference is replacing a back seat before a front seat, or vice versa. Sometimes sequence matters, I suppose. Always good to have someone point out exactly why, I guess.

    Regards,
    JJS

  68. @Son of Dixie

    Next time just post a link, perhaps a paragraph describing what the link is. Stay on topic as well.

    Nah. I’d rather scroll-up than click a page tab and then scroll. But, chacun a son gout.

  69. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    “Perhaps because I am genetically obtuse, there are parts of the evolutionary tale that I don’t understand.”

    Fred, Fred, Cabbage Head, there is NOTHING to understand. Evolution has no purpose. It just is. All you have to know is the basic rules of evolution. And rest is just the product of the general rule.

    Basic rule is this. Under certain conditions, carbon stuff acts in such a way that it reproduces itself. So, it begins to reproduce and reproduce. But along the way, certain mutations occur — it’s like accidents happen all the time — , and some carbon stuff stumbles upon more efficient ways of reproduction.

    Now, this mutated strand of carbon stuff reproduces faster and better, and so it comes to dominate over the other carbon stuff that is also reproducing but not as fast. Imagine if carbon stuff reproduces 10x per day. Now, suppose there’s a 1000 of this carbon stuff. They are all reproducing 10x per day. But suppose one strand mutates and reproduces 100x a day. Then, its reproductions will gain supremacy since they are reproducing much faster. Over time, mutations accumulate, and those that facilitate more reproduction will come to dominate. Every new development in life is an ‘accident’, a random mutation, that allowed it reproduce better.

    It’s like this. Suppose you are in a jungle full of dangerous animals, and suppose wild animals like to bite off your dick and eat it. So, you and other guys are in danger of losing your dicks to nasty set of teeth. But suppose you were born with a mutation that gave you two dicks. Now, you have an advantage. Even if some beast bites off one of your dicks, you still have one left. Other guys aren’t so lucky. If they lose their dicks, they can’t reproduce. But suppose you lose a dick but still have one left and bang a lot of ho’s. And some of your sons have two dicks too. Their chance of mating is higher since even if they lose a dick, they still got a dick left. So, over time, two dicked men come to dominate. Evolution is simply that. Whatever trait is favored is due to its advantage in reproduction.

    “I do not understand populational altruism from the standpoint of behavioral genetics or evolutionary psychology. Populations in numerical decline—the French, for example—intentionally import genetically very distinct and faster-breeding peoples. Sweden, perhaps the whitest of nations, deliberately imports black Africans, and Germany, Moslems. The United States focuses its domestic policy on the upkeep of a black population.”

    It is because what is beneficial under one circumstances may not be in another. And there is sometimes a lag between change in environment and change in habit.
    In a forest of white trees, white-winged moths are favored for survival cuz they are camouflaged. Meanwhile, black-winged moths are easily picked off by predators. But suppose the trees turn black. White wings, which were once an advantage, is now a disadvantage.

    Same thing goes for altruism. When white nations were more into tribalism and nationalism, altruism meant people working together and helping each other. This was a huge boon to power and survival. Altruism within the group is a huge advantage if most people are trustworthy and hardworking like Germanic and Nordics. (Altruism even within the group isn’t a good thing if, like Greeks or Southern Italians, everyone is dishonest and out to fleece others.)

    Every advantage forms within a certain environment. But once the environment changes, the same advantage can turn into a disadvantage.
    There is a kind of wild bulls that has a defensive strategy of ‘circling the wagons’. When faced with danger, the males form a circle and females and young ones stay in the middle. This is an effective strategy against wolves, bears, and cougars.
    But against humans with guns, it is a fatal strategy since humans can just gun down these animals that are not running but standing in a circle.

    Altruism or culture of Trust formed within certain communities to benefit the community. We think of altruism as helping others, but there is a limit to its formulation of ‘others’. Paradoxically, altruism is about helping others to win against the Big Other. It was originally about Anglos helping other Anglos to defeat the Big Other like the French, Germans, or Russians. It was about Germans helping other Germans to defeat the French, the British, or the Russians.
    It was never meant to help all of humanity. And it wasn’t meant to help the Jews who are really into helping themselves without end.

    Japanese are altruistic. Samurai were willing to sacrifice life for the clan. But such selflessness was for the good of the tribe, not for other clans and certainly not for all of humanity.

    Within the tribe, trust is a must. Outside the tribe, trust is a bust.
    Look at wolves. They are altruistic within the pack. But it is to serve the pack, not to serve other packs and other animals. Wolves interact socially to protect and empower the pack. Any wolf that acted altruistically toward other packs or to a grizzly bear would be a fool.

    Nature is essentially dishonest. Honesty and trust spell doom in nature. Prey animals hide. They hide their young. They use camouflage to escape being eaten. A prey animal that honestly says to a tiger, “hey, I’m hidng here” would be stupid.
    And predators use deceit. They stalk stealthily to get near the prey. A tiger that says, “hey, I’m creeping up on you, mr. deer” would be a dumbass tiger and would starve to death.
    Nature is all about deception. Snakes hide and strike unexpectedly. Hawks swoop down from the sky and grab a rabbit that didn’t see it coming. There is deceit in the cauliflower… in nature. Nature at its core has no use for trust.

    But something happened along the way. Some animals developed social systems or skills. Some were simple animals like ants and bees and it was largely instinctive and programmed. But among higher social animals like wolves and lions and chimps and dolphins, there was sort of an emotional bonding and conscious understanding of a sense of togetherness. So, instead of ‘me against all’, it turned into ‘us against others’.
    But this trust had to exist ONLY within the group. Trust within a wolf pack is a big advantage for the pack. But any wolf within the pack that extends trust to other wolf packs is a goner. Other packs have their own agendas for territory and dominance.
    It’s like in 2001 space odyssey where one bunch of apes whup another bunch of apes. Trust must be within the tribe, not outside the tribe.

    Over time, the circle of trust widened among human groups, especially among those of shared lineage. Clans came together as tribes that came together as kingdoms and even nations.
    Most Swedes are genetically linked. Same goes for Japanese. They are like national families. Such homogeneity led to a sense of oneness. And with the help of moral ideas, a culture of trust developed.

    But trust wasn’t just some nice gentle thing that developed. It also developed under much ruthlessness, punishment, fear, and terror. Those who violated trust could be killed, exiled, whupped real bad, etc.
    Consider the film BALLAD OF NARAYAMA by Shohei Imamura.
    A family in the village stole food from other families. So, what do other families do? They gang up on the family that stole and bury them all alive. Ruthless and horrible, but it was under such pressure that culture of trust developed.
    https://youtu.be/ul8k4r4bV-A?t=1h2m2s
    Of course, it wasn’t only fear and terror. Too much of that stuff leads to a culture of distrust and paranoia, like in Stalin’s Russia or East Germany. But trust wasn’t just some goo-goo gentle good-neighbor thing. It was developed through carrot and stick of moral inspiration and fearsome punishment. It’s like the Amish have this called ‘shunning’ which is worse than death for Amish folks. Those who do wrong are ‘shunned’. One becomes a non-person in the community, and this is like death since Amish community is very close-knit. So, trust was developed not only by good-will but by harsh threat of punishment for those who don’t conform.

    So, trust must be carefully guarded and used WITHIN THE TRIBE. It’s like football game. There must be trust within the team. It must be intra-team trust. But inter-team trust is a disaster. I mean if one team gives away its secrets to the other team, the other team will get a leg up.
    Same goes for war. There must be trust within one side but not with the other side.
    When Hitler was planning to invade Russia, he didn’t tell Stalin his secrets.
    When Allies were planning to invade Normandy, they didn’t cable Hitler and say, “Hey, we are gonna be landing here and here.” That would be stupid.

    So, for culture of trust to work, one must first define ‘who is the enemy’ and ‘who is the friend’. Also, there is a difference between trustworthy friends and mere convenient allies. With inner friends, you can share trust. With formal allies, there is a limit to trust. US and USSR were allies in WWII, but US couldn’t trust the USSR in everything. (But then, Stalin had his spies all over US government under FDR.)

    The problem in the West is that the friend/enemy dichotomy has broken down. Due to Jewish takeover of media and academia, white people are no longer allowed to think in terms of white vs non-white, let alone gentile interest vs Jewish interest.
    This is one reason why Jews were eager to break down any notion of white themed clubs or organizations. Such organizations imply great trust among whites over white-themed issues. Jews don’t want whites to have racial privacy and inner trust. The white door must always be open so that Jews can look in and listen to all that is said. But of course, Jews are allowed to have their own organizations and inner trust closed off to gentiles.

    Whites must see non-whites as friends while seeing fellow whites as possible enemies(if they are ‘racist’). So, ‘good’ whites are to see whites-who-call-for-trust-among-whites as evil. PC says whites must distrust whites and instead trust Jews and non-whites, such as the mountain-sized Negro who loves a small mouse in GREEN MILE.

    So, ‘good’ whites are destroying the true purpose of culture of trust that developed in the West. Culture of Trust came at great cost in the West. It took many centuries to develop. It developed among homogeneous people related in blood, instilled with virtue, and punished harshly for violations. This valuable asset created over many centuries of trial-and-error has been cheapened by PC notion that whites should trust Negroes, Muslims, globo-homos, race traitors, immigrant invaders, and etc. It’s like a psychoanalyst telling his client, “Don’t trust yourself. Just trust me.” This way, the client surrenders his mind to the shrink.
    PC tells white folks, “Don’t trust your own people. Trust Jews and non-whites.” But Jews and non-whites mean the most harm to white folks.

    Now, how could so many white people fall for this? It’s because most people are like dogs. If the masters change, they change since they are incapable of thinking on their own and since they are addicted to mindless pop culture and shaped by taboo-laden PC.
    So, their Trust mechanism can be tweaked and reprogrammed to work against its original intent and purpose
    It’s like dogs. Suppose you raise a dog and it trusts you and your side. This dog is loyal. You manipulated the dog’s nature for social loyalty and interaction. Since YOU trained it, this dog is actually more loyal to humans than to other dogs.
    Now, suppose you use this dog against the enemy. But suppose the enemy wins and takes this dog. This dog will initially bark at the enemy, but the enemy, its new master, can mess with its mind and, over time, this dog that had served your side loyally is serving its new master most loyally. So, even though the loyal nature of the dog remains, the object of its loyalty goes from your side to that of the enemy.

    White folks are the same way. Most of them just follow the master. When the masters were nationalists and patriots, they were pro-white or pro-nation. Even the Left of most nations chose nation over ideology during WWI. French Left sided with France, German Left side with Germany.
    But after the debacle of WWI and WWII, the new masters of the Europe became the US that came to be dominated by Jews. And the new generation of elites came to be dominated by the Left that gained huge advantage in light of the disgrace of the Right in association with Nazism and then imperialism.

    A people raised under culture of trust are more obedient to authority. They are more trusting of those in power. Look how the Germans are still supporting the horrible Merkel. Since the new elites of Europe are a bunch of PC-pushers, the trust-centric nations have become so slavish to the idea that white folks should be unconditionally trusting of non-whites. But they are trusting of ALL peoples. They are trusting only of those favored by the globalist elites. EU elites say Russia is very very bad, so most Europeans hate Russia and feel no trust for it.
    But EU elites say that it is ‘racist’ to not trust tons of black African migrants, so white Europeans tell themselves that they must extend trust to all these jafro jivers who come to Europe just for easy money and easy sex.

    The mind is fluid enough that it can be manipulated to use a virtue in a stupid way. Trust is a virtue within a certain setting and context. But outside such setting and context, virtue turns into a stupidity. This is true of all things. A dog that acts gentle in a home is good. But if such gentleness in nature would be fatal to a dog. If a wolf or bear appeared on the scene and if the dog wanted to be friendly, it’d be killed.

    It’s like in VIRGIN SPRING by Ingmar Bergman. The daughter was raised in sheltered environment full of love and trust. So, when she comes upon three drifters, she assumes they are good decent people like her. But in fact, they are louts looking for some pooter.

    But there is now another factor. Not only do white folks feel trust for the Other but they also feel Lust for the other, especially the Negro. Misdirected trust and misguided lust will destroy the white race. The Negro is the least trustworthy thing in the universe. The Jafro spirit makes the Negro savage and nutty. Negro has little in the way of conscience. Just look at Black Lives Matter. Negroes kill one another but blame whitey. Vile people. But Negro biatches have big butts and sing like ho’s, and white girls wanna emulate Rihanna and Beyonce. And Negro boys got more muscle and bigger dongs, and white women got jungalo fever, and white boys are into cuck culture of watching Negroes do white women. So, misdirected trust and misguided lust that have overcome the white race will kill it off.

    Also, there is the collaborationist class whose power and privilege depends on the enslavement of the white race. It may well be that some of the European elites know what is happening and that it will end badly for Europeans. But they themselves will be spared cuz they got privilege and connections as the result of collaborating with the globalist masters. Since their position and privilege have been gained by working against their own race, nation, and people, they must do everything to ensure the enslavement and destruction of their people. Having chose to be traitor-collaborators, that is their own assurance of privilege.
    This is why the Vichy regime and French collaborators were afraid of Nazi defeat. They weren’t necessarily pro-German or loved Hitler. But their power and privilege in Nazi-occupied Germany were the result of collaboration. Without the German masters, they would lose everything, even their lives.
    This was also true of Eastern European communist elites. Many of them knew that they were living under Soviet Occupation. They didn’t like Russians. But their power and privilege came about as the result of collaborating with their Soviet masters. So, they wanted the Soviet-communist system just to cling to their position and privilege.

    Today, in the EU and US, entire class of white elites gained power by collaborating with Jewish-Homo globo-elites. So, even if they were to realize that their actions are doing great harm to white people as a whole, they prefer to keep collaborating since they are looking out for #1, which is themselves and their own families.

    Once you collaborate, you are tainted. You are a traitor. Therefore, you fall with your master. A French Vichy collaborator was finished with the fall of Nazi power in France. He knew it. And East German communist elites were finished once Russians moved out. And EU bureaucrats would have no power without the backing of globalist Jews. This is why National Review and Conservatism hate Trump and Alt Right so much. They know that they gained power and position by collaborating with Neocon Jews. They’ve done ZERO and NOTHING for white Americans. They have nothing to show for. So, the ONLY way they can keep their privilege is by ensuring that Jewish Neocons rule the American Right forever.

    Collaborators have no popular support. Only the support of their overlords who are oppressing the populace.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  70. geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor

    It’s like this. Suppose you are in a jungle full of dangerous animals, and suppose wild animals like to bite off your dick and eat it. So, you and other guys are in danger of losing your dicks to nasty set of teeth. But suppose you were born with a mutation that gave you two dicks. Now, you have an advantage…

    Makes perfect sense. If only my grade 11 science teacher taught the subject this way, I would never have dropped out.

  71. Jesse says:
    @TG

    1940s India had to produce many children for many reasons: 1) colonial exploitation was bringing about frequent famines which culled huge numbers of people – the last of them in Bengal brought about by Churchill who diverted food grains to the Eurpean war fronts in a drought year, killed 10 million; 2) the frequent wars and internal disturbances which lasted from late 1700 till mid 1800 took a heavy toll of life. The only way to avoid extinction was to produce many children.

    In the case of the US in the comparable period, the white immigrants exterminated the local population and simultaneously brought in black slaves from Africa in the thousands. So these influxes – impoverished whites from Ireland and other parts of Europe, the black slaves from Africa and the diminishing native populations – kind of established a dynamic equilibrium.

    Also north America is rich in resources to optimally use it you need much higher population levels. So the underpopulation in north America is not exactly a desirable situation. In a more balanced, equitable world, there would have been a natural movement of population from Africa and India to balance out the under population in north America and Europe.

    Perhaps that is what is happening in the recent Syrian exodus to Europe. Although the trigger is the instability in middle-east, it could well be a part of a much larger evolutionary trend in human history.

    A similar exodus towards Korea and Japan, and paradoxically also China, the other under populated and aeging regions of the world seems indicated in the future.

  72. Anon[145] • Disclaimer says:

    Exactly how kitchen appliances drastically alter the expression of genes for reproduction eludes me. It is also curious that prosperity is a contraceptive: Reproduction is inversely proportional to the means of supporting it.

    Are you just playing stupid or do you really not get it? Obviously technology changes the way people act. It doesn’t change their genetic inheritance. When people aren’t worried about starving to death they stop investing in religion, farm equipment, natural production of related collaborators which is what family size is about, and instead pour all their time/money into relentless sexual competition and “individuality.” Technology has grown a bit in the past 500 years or so, did you notice?

Current Commenter
says:

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


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