The Feminists, Equalists And Economists Are Gonna Hate This

The NewYorkBetaTimes, of all the flaccid media organs!, reports on a study that finds genes play a major role in primate social behavior.

Social behavior among primates — including humans — has a substantial genetic basis, a team of scientists has concluded from a new survey of social structure across the primate family tree.

The scientists, at the University of Oxford in England, looked at the evolutionary family tree of 217 primate species whose social organization is known. Their findings, published in the journal Nature, challenge some of the leading theories of social behavior, including:

– That social structure is shaped by environment — for instance, a species whose food is widely dispersed may need to live in large groups.

– That complex societies evolve step by step from simple ones.

– And the so-called social brain hypothesis: that intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.

By contrast, the new survey emphasizes the major role of genetics in shaping sociality. Being rooted in genetics, social structure is hard to change, and a species has to operate with whatever social structure it inherits.

If social behavior were mostly shaped by ecology, then related species living in different environments should display a variety of social structures. But the Oxford biologists — Susanne Shultz, Christopher Opie and Quentin Atkinson — found the opposite was true: Primate species tended to have the same social structure as their close relatives, regardless of how and where they live.

One by one, the shibboleths of the post-Enlightenment Left crumble into dust, their lies scattering like tumbleweed on the purifying desert winds.

The Old World monkeys, for example, a group that includes baboons and macaques, live in many habitats, from savanna to rain forest to alpine regions, and may feed on fruit or leaves or grass. Yet all have very similar social systems, suggesting that their common ancestry — and the inherited genes that shape behavior — are a stronger influence than ecology on their social structure.

Genes a stronger influence on social structure — aka culture — than the environment? Now who was it said something similar not too long ago on this very outpost of mortifying truths? Ah, yes:

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” [feminists] so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

Great crops of corn, I hate to toot my own horn, but goddamn… strike up the band!

The fact that related species have similar social structures, presumably because the genes for social behavior are inherited from a common ancestor, “spells trouble” for ecological explanations, Joan B. Silk, a primate expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a commentary in Nature. Also, the finding that there has not been a steady progression from small groups to large ones challenges the social brain hypothesis, Dr. Silk said.

The Oxford survey confirms that the structure of human society, too, is likely to have a genetic basis, since humans are in the primate family, said Bernard Chapais, an expert on human social evolution at the University of Montreal.

Think about the radical implications this study *should* have on public policy. (I say “should” because the old guard will work tirelessly to smear anyone who dares draw the arrow from human genetic predisposition to informed social policy.) If it became commonly accepted knowledge that genes play a major, maybe even predominant, role in how human population groups organize socially, sexually and economically, then in one fell swoop the following canons would be reduced to the dung heap of exposed lies, alongside such luminous repositories of sacred thought as geocentrism, Freudianism, Communism and the theory of buying chicks stuff on the first date in hopes of sex:

– redistribution (in any form) for any means other than intergroup pacification

– feminism

– egalitarianism

– rational actor economics

– multiculturalism

– laissez-faire libertarianism in heterogeneous societies

– unrestricted immigration

– ideologies with cultural conditioning theories as their centerpiece

– exported democratization

– cheap chalupaism

The strawmen armies will, naturally, come marching out in force to cow anyone from waving this study in the air like a beacon to guide the free thinkers through a battlefield shrouded in choking gas, mud and fog. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with them all here, but for a few exceedingly trite and trollish objections.

“Apes aren’t humans.”

Funny how the pro-evolution Left is so quick to highlight the gulf between apes and humans when it suits their agenda. Apes aren’t humans, but apes are our closest cousins. From them we can learn much about ourselves, if not everything.

“Genes aren’t destiny. Our fates aren’t predetermined.”

Reductio ad absurdum. Genes aren’t destiny, but they are significant constraints on destiny. For instance, (and to use a very obvious example), a man with a genetic predisposition to criminality can have his unobstructed destiny to inflict pain and suffering on others severely altered by a long prison stint. But remove that environmental influence, and his genetic impulse resumes primary ownership of his behavior. So while we don’t have exact destinies given us at our birth from which we may never stray, we do have paths laid before us that are closer to, or further from, alignment with our natural genetic proclivities. The rockier the path, the stricter the environmental or cultural controls needed to keep us trundling along it. The smoother the path, the looser the controls needed.

“Ok, genes may play a role, but humans share 99.whatever% of their genes.”

Great. We also share 99% of our genes with mice, but no one would mistake a man for a mouse. Unless he’s named H. Schwyzer. That .whatever% of genes we don’t universally share makes for a lot of difference.

“Humans can adapt.”

Correction: Humans can adapt more or less easily. And sometimes, not at all. Public policy should be that which encourages the construction and maintenance of a prosperous national environment that puts as few stressors on its citizens’ store of ability to adapt as possible.

Within my lifetime, I would love to see the self-evident truths encompassed in this post recognized and embraced by the elite. But it’s looking more and more like that is a pipe dream. Instead, traitors and liars will drag us down into the dark, murky abyss before they surrender their pride.





Comments


  1. What about “is is not ought” or “we should transcend our genes”?

    I sympathize with both these objections and with the public policy philosophy espoused by Heartiste that public policy ought to “encourage the construction and maintenance of a prosperous national environment that puts as few stressors on its citizens’ store of ability to adapt as possible.”

    Like


    • Why should we transcend our genes, and when? They seem to work just fine for millions of species for millions of years, so there’d better be a good reason for subverting them. We’re the only species that can do it, but that doesn’t mean that all genes are biological baggage preventing us from reaching our true potential.

      Like


      • Humans aren’t rational actors. They aren’t data-processing beings who make decisions. For the most part, we are structures created by our genes to facilitate duplication.

        Let that sink in for a second.

        What this means is that everything we do, from making friends, to choosing food, to (obviously) choosing mates and even sacrificing our lives is not OUR behavior. It is the behavior of our genes, seeking to spread themselves.

        When you think about it this way, a lot of what goes on makes sense. Why people seek dominance and power, why they want to marginalize others, why it’s easy for rich white liberals to promote abortion with such fervor. Why we hate immigrants with big families.

        So much of our psychological baggage from the past can be explained in terms of genetics. It explains the resistance to studying this stuff, sussing out its true implications. It also makes a great case for the idea that the human race is intractably fucked.

        Like


      • When? Whenever our genetic instinct is to hurt other people unnecessarily. Why? Because a world where everyone is treated with an equal amount of respect is the best world we can hope for. Whether or not we are adapting naturally to the world that science has created, that is the world that now exists. Adapt or die.

        Like


  2. The elite already accept evolutionary psychology. Liberal policies are not crafted to help people, but rather to exploit them.

    Like


    • Extremely well said. Liberal politics are much more so patronizing noblesse oblige, designed to garner the votes of the helpless to keep elites in power.
      Liberal policies (by which I mean collectivist, or socialist policies) strongly discourage good education, which would truly lift up the poor, and strongly discourage small and large business growth, which would return us to prosperity.

      Like


    • Exactly.

      Like


    • “Liberal politics are much more so patronizing noblesse oblige….”

      Close. Liberals want someone else to work hard nd pay the “oblige” part, while they retain for themselves the “noblesse.”

      Like


    • Nicholas Wade in invaluable.

      The NY Times surprisingly give him a lot of latitude.

      Like


  3. Those that are howled down for the truth still have it on their side even as they’re been drawn and quartered by the egalitarian group thinkers. Certain sectors of the Scientific community seem to be ready to risk their lives and careers for the truth now. These people are heroes.

    Like


  4. The left loves science as long as they can manipulate it to advance their agenda (power, bitches), much like everything else they claim to love.

    Like


  5. on December 20, 2011 at 3:47 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/64477298/

    da bed of proctsis7ets procstes! zlzolzzlzl

    PROCRUSTES!!!!

    Like


  6. I think the reason this is being hidden by the establishment is the consequences of people finding out their lives are 95% mapped out by genes. Why would someone want to be a productive member of society when their genes tell them they are limited in what they can acquire intellectually? But the scarier thing is that people might start aborting their fetuses or killing their infants early on because their genes are inferior and would be a waste of time taking care of them. That also opens the possibility of a future Hitler-like Mad man who kill or stops supporting people who have inferior genetics.

    Like


    • You’re supporting your demise? That type of honesty is rare. At least those that aren’t genetically gifted are acknowledging that they are just strains on humanity popping out obese asptards and other forms of defective offspring.

      Society coddles people like you. You should be worshiping it.

      Like


    • the info is suppressed because it would mean an end to social welfare programs and the redistribution of money from white men to women and racial minorities. if women and minorities fuel most consumerism in America, so if they are deprived of money, the elite plutocrat’s fortunes would vanish overnight – and when the money goes, so does there political influence.

      Like


    • There are likely inferior genetics, but the majority of people have average genes, and, with hard work and responsible choices, achieve considerably more than what the left would allow.
      I dnt necessarily believe that genetics can’t be at least partially overcome, nor that “superior” genes guarantee excellence.

      Like


    • on December 21, 2011 at 2:19 am The real reason

      No, BillyB. The real reason why the social, political and media establishments don’t want everyone to eat the forbidden apple from the tree of genetic determinism is because doing so would demolish the illusions of equality.

      The average Asian IQ is 105; the average white IQ is 100; the average Hispanic IQ is 90; and the average black American IQ is 85. Genetic studies have shown that the black American gene pool is about 20% white, which explains why blacks in the US score 10 to 15 points higher on IQ tests than their counterparts in Africa.

      Of course, most of us who aren’t gullible enough to be duped by the endless diversophilia propaganda already know the realities of race, IQ and genetics. If more people realized these fundamental truths about race, the socialist diversophiles wouldn’t be able to justify the bilking of hard-working white American tax payers out of their money for more ‘urban’ social programs because everyone would realize that black backwardness is not the product of what white people are or aren’t doing for them, but is instead a product of their nature. Further, diversophiles regard equality as some sort of holy sacrament, and showing them evidence that clearly disproves their delusions cause mental breakdowns, fits of rage and various forms of neuroticism and psychosis. In the same way that Christian creationists will deny evolution despite overwhelming evidence that we evolved from lower species and instead persist in deluding themselves that some invisible god pointed his finger and zapped the universe into existence, so too will diversophiles deny the realities of race, IQ and genetics despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that racial differences are grounded in genetics. The best way to defeat the diversophiles is to continue shoving these studies in their faces until they have experienced enough mental breakdowns to admit that equality is the real social construct/illusion, not race.

      As for your paranoid delusion that recognizing the realities of race will cause a mass eruption of Nazi-like fury, I shouldn’t even waste my time explaining how stupid of an idea that is. I’ve been a race realist since I was 15 years of age (I’m 23 now), and I have been reading American Renaissance, Occidental Quarterly and similar publications since 2006. During this time I have never envisioned creating some sort of racial holocaust for simply recognizing realities about race that are inconvenient for the social, political and media establishments. No doubt you are projecting your own issues onto race realists, and I suggest that you seek help for whatever sort of neurosis is afflicting you.

      Like


      • Genetic studies have shown that the black American gene pool is about 20% white, which explains why blacks in the US score 10 to 15 points higher on IQ tests than their counterparts in Africa.

        Do a little junior high algebra. If you back out the 20% white you get black American IQ of 80. The 10 points higher than ssAfrica is probably a combination of lower disease load, better nutrition, and the Flynn effect. The Flynn effects is probably a combo of those two things plus the increasingly greater abstract complexity of modern life in developed countries. Our brain muscles get more exercise in them just from daily consumer life, and some jobs.

        Like


  7. The SWPL elites, the feminist slags and the manginae cowards, are drying themselves off as they willingly exit the gene pool. This is happening both in newly effete Asia and the lost-cause West.

    They are *not* replacing their worthless populations. They are not having enough children and, therefore, they are goners.

    Their power is swiftly coming to its absolute height and will swiftly decline. The next great war will clean out the remainder. Old and new religions will contend for cultural and technological control of the fresh reality.

    It’s time to re-enter the world of violence.

    Like


  8. A hahahahahahahahahahaha
    somewhere, right now, the editors at Jezebel are choking on this info.

    May they go the way of their spiritual compatriot, Kim Jong Il.

    Like


    • on December 20, 2011 at 4:14 pm Holden Caulfield

      Oh man, you are so right about some of these femcunt sites choking on it (heh). They will either a) flip their shit over this new information or b) completely ignore it because of the implications. My guess is “b”.

      Like


  9. The fact that people may have genes which keep us in groups is a strong case for group selection. Group selection is a real mindfuck for liberals – races are races because they have evolved to be that way.

    Like


    • The bigger mindfuck is that we whites are evolved to be less activated by consideration of race than other races — hence this loathsome predicament of being replaced in our homelands, which we are not even “allowed” to observe if we wish to maintain our standing.

      Like


      • I think whites simply have weaker impulses (both good and bad) which makes them easily malleable. This is the sadder mindfuck, that whites can easily be molded into something magnificent under the right leadership, but our current alien, hostile leadership can just as easily form them into something wicked and unnatural.

        Like


      • Bingo!!! This has also been my thinking. It has also been commented by blacks that they see white people as being easier to “hypnotize” and manipulate. There is a video on youtube called “The Century of the Self” where an experiment on blacks and whites suggested that whites were more amenable to psychological manipulation. As you state, it is sadly because whites have such weak instincts that they seemingly have no vital center, leaving them open to suggestion. Look at Britain and its problem with Muslims grooming young white girls. There’s barely any real outrage, where if the reverse had happened in a non-white nation, hell would have been raised and the culprits lynched. For a people who pride themselves on being the ethical race, it’s as if whites have no real fixed organic instinctive center of their own. One might consider there may be something to the argument that people who get too caught up in metaphysical abstractions do so because they are numb to the natural, organic and vital.

        Like


      • wow.. I think u might have something there.

        Like


      • We had these traits until recently, but they’ve been deliberately undermined and made socially unacceptable in order to groom us for our future socialist utopia. Everything we complain about here has its roots in cultural Marxism.

        Like


      • “cultural Marxism”

        oh u mean jews?
        it’s ok, you can say that here

        Like


      • Very good point.

        Like


      • Nah. Whites have the same tendencies to favor their own as any other race. Just because whites are busy betraying each other now for some advantages within White society does not mean there is a genetic tendency for Whites to do this.

        For example, there have been many points in history where Blacks have sold out their fellow Blacks (directly into Slavery, no less), where Indians have betrayed Indians (over religions, no less), Chinese have slaughtered their own Chinese (over the usual politics), etc.

        Within any group, there is fierce intra-group selection going on, but the larger group selection process rules in the long term.

        Right now, Whites are trying to one-up each other through political correctness, but once the Whites have experienced enough Pain there will be a sharp reversal of roles and White Nationalism will be popular again. People who think the Whites are going extinct are chicken littles.

        The change for White Nationalism will come once White women experience enough Pain. Once White women start fearing Blacks and Browns, White men of all political classes will rise up together to play the hero. This story is as old as the History books.

        Within the next decade or two, some Texan, Arizonian, or Californian town will be overrun by Mexicans. The men will be killed, the women raped, the children exploited. The mere thought of being raped by a Mexican is so revolting to a White woman, that a few cases of this and White women all over the United States will simultaneously become ultra racist. People will wonder what happened to the Civil Rights movement.

        The politics of this nation go where the women go. Meanwhile, the beta males who lick women’s assholes will be only too happy to Protect and Serve. The alphas, who are already strong believers in White Nationalism to begin with, will eagerly let the betas go kill some Brown people in the name of Whites.

        Meanwhile, Browns and Blacks who do not want to incur the wrath of Whites, who, historically, have always been the most brutal killers, will side with the Whites and eagerly sell out their fellow Browns/Blacks in the name of being on the winning team, i.e. the Whites.

        Like


  10. on December 20, 2011 at 4:24 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

    lzoozzlzoozoz

    you popele people are funny zlzzozozozl

    the very point of feminismsms pfeminis feminimsms

    is to

    IGNORE the GREAT BOOKS

    DECONSTRUCT the GREAT BOOKS

    KILL babies

    KILL Science

    KILL CULTURe language and BORDERS zlzozlzl

    DENY logic

    SCORN reason

    MOCK science

    and

    TRANSFER WEALTH to the bernanke elite from men

    science, truth, beuaty do not matter to the power-hongry necoocncs fiat fmeinist jonah golberg cherubic faced jonah golberg

    but only more monye for them
    less free 4 u
    more fiat bailouts ofr them
    more taxes and debt 4 u
    lzoozlzoz

    dat is why they started the fmeinist movemnetsss!!

    Like


  11. on December 20, 2011 at 4:29 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

    HEY HEATRISTSTESS heratiste!!!

    somebody is stealling your art work your ART your ART and STYLE!!!!

    http://www.cheaterville.com/?page=press&id=144

    tey are copying you lzozoozoz imiiataiataion is the sicnndeerets form of flattery!! zlozozlz

    Like


  12. laissez-faire libertarianism in heterogeneous societies

    This does not follow from the article you cite, in fact laissez-faire is suggested by it. If you understand what laissez-faire is and how it is *not* advocated by the overwhelming majority of today’s libertarians who are either anarchists or statists of some variety, then you would understand that it is the solution to every social ill you have ever mentioned on this blog.

    * Eliminate the welfare state, every element of it including public schools
    * Eliminate all preventative law, ie regulatory interventionism
    * Eliminate all egalitarian interventionism, ie anti-discrimination laws
    * Eliminate all vestiges of central banking including gov’t control over weights and measures of hard currency
    * Eliminate all victimless crime laws especially anti-drug and anti-prostitution laws
    * treat marriage as a contract and eliminate all egalitarian legal precedents foisted on marital law; no-fault would be meaningless if men could specify when the marital contract was violated and what the financial repercussions would be – THIS is the solution to today’s problems in marriage
    * Require total financial responsibility for voting eligibility; which by definition there would be if there were no welfare state; women couldn’t vote for the confiscation and redistribution of wealth so they could do no damage
    * Immigration becomes a non-issue with the exception of Muslims which should be banned until Islam is ever pacified which may be never; even is hispanics came they would have to be self-supporting and with no drug laws an no welfare state and no ghettos there would be no crime infested inner cities like there are today.

    There. That solves all you problems.

    There is more to laissez-faire theory of course, but every problem you complain about on this blog of exposing “pretty lies” (without you knowing a god-damn thing about economics) can be solved without the resort to some version of Conservatism which is what you really are Mr. Heartiste. And despite what you say, you are indeed a determinist, what Raymond Tallis calls a proponent of Neuro-Evolutionary biologism; ie scientism. You have embraced materialism instead of Cartesian Dualism; ie you have taken the other side of a false alternative and effectively dehumanized humanity.

    Human volition mandates Laissez-Faire and it is that volition which is the true fundamental of human nature; far more than any genetic propensity for this or that because of this or that gene, which is itself becoming a largely discredited view of genetics.

    But then I am casting diamonds before swine….

    Like


    • on December 20, 2011 at 5:11 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

      lozozlzlzloo

      back in da day of moses and jesus da swine used 2 trample upon da pearls.

      2day da neocons swine piggies fat face d cherubic afced piggly wigglies proudly shove the pearls in der butts and parade on down k street boasting about how many butthex how many pearl of wisodm dey butthex in der ainal acaavatity as sectrieve tapings of butthex without the girtlths conthennet maketh da neooctchcts heros heroic heores zlozzlozozlz

      Like


    • Precisely, Jack. I would add that in a heterogeneous society
      (IF you have one, I am not particularly advocating it), libertarianism
      is a MUST. In all other cases, the various factions/ethnic groups/whatever
      will fight to the death for control of the machinery of state.

      But he is not necessarily a determinist, any more than anybody
      else who tries to puzzle together threads of sociology, what causes
      people to do what etc. A strong intellectual leader or warlord can
      tip the scales. While we don’t have control groups, It is a fair guess that
      lots of INDIVIDUAL people (in an absolute sense, not as a percentage)
      have had a strong influence on culture, anybody from Genghis Khan
      to FDR to Rachel Carson to Ayn Rand. And many others.

      Some specific items:

      * Eliminate the welfare state, every element of it including public schools
      * Eliminate all preventative law, ie regulatory interventionism
      * Eliminate all egalitarian interventionism, ie anti-discrimination laws
      Yup to all of the above.

      * Eliminate all vestiges of central banking including gov’t control over
      weights and measures of hard currency
      Probably. But I see lots av abuses either way.

      * Eliminate all victimless crime laws especially anti-drug and anti-prostitution laws
      Yup

      * treat marriage as a contract and eliminate all egalitarian legal precedents foisted on marital law; no-fault would be meaningless if men could specify when the marital contract was violated and what the financial repercussions would be – THIS is the solution to today’s problems in marriage
      Yup

      * Require total financial responsibility for voting eligibility; which by definition there would be if there were no welfare state; women couldn’t vote for the confiscation and redistribution of wealth so they could do no damage

      My motto is “no representation without taxation”. You work out the details,
      but people should not be able to vote themselves support with stolen
      money, from the state of from ex-spouses nor anybody else.

      * Immigration becomes a non-issue with the exception of Muslims which should be banned until Islam is ever pacified which may be never; even is hispanics came they would have to be self-supporting and with no drug laws an no welfare state and no ghettos there would be no crime infested inner cities like there are today.

      Yup.

      Thor

      Like


    • Excellent post. Well said.

      Like


    • Lol determinism / dualism?

      This is primarily a blog about game and the true nature of humanity, which it should be noted you DID NOT LEVEL ANY ONE THEORY OF MIND. Just made an assumption and moved on. The ugly truth is even if everything is deterministic you would still feel personal responsibility, not accepting it would make you a sociopath. A person we know to operate without feelings of remorse.

      Every philosophy major I’ve known has admitted to a diminishing return on the amount of speculation one can productively make about the nature of men, that is, when only using philosophy. You talk about scientism but what about the many minds theory simply promoting an exponential form of dualism, there is a reason deterministic thought and behaviorism is looked to by many intelligent people when deciding on how to proceed in life. Taking personal responsibility and projecting it onto even the remorseless is one of the few ways to have a just society. If we neutered our pedophiles like the South Koreans everyone would be in an uproar. If we neutered or euthanized retarded people everyone would call that morally reprehensible. Executing 100% guilty caught dead to rights rapists? Absurd! Next you’ll be wanting to just shoot people caught dead to rights that perform an act of premeditated murder. The horror, the horror!

      It’s so wrong because…. why exactly? Because people that want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary in the hopes that somehow human thought and memory is somehow quantum and ephemeral escaping from all the known laws of nature. “I can’t be just a domino put into effect by a big bang that I don’t understand the origins of, and from where did that bang come!?” These people are just like Descarte shitting on the pot of action and obsessing over the nature of man and god. Open your eyes and look out your window, is it going to rain? Are you going to act and behave as a rational and sentient person even if you are just experiencing the random firings of an epiphanal system that drags you from one lay to the next like a deterministic fuck zombie? Hell yes you are.

      Like


    • The problem with your ideas is that while some of them are rational avenues towards eliminating unnecessary legal control over private lives (drugs, prostitution), the majority amounts to the proverbial throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It seems that your starting position is to criticize brainless political correctness and abuses of the welfare system, sprinkled with some good old racial superiority, but what you end up proposing, and it’s by no means an isolated sentiment around here, is to revert society to a feudal system where there is a small ruling majority of potentates who govern the destinies of all others.

      Let’s take a few examples:

      * Eliminate the welfare state, every element of it including public schools

      That assumes that you will never be in a position to require any aid based on such circumstances as a serious illness (if you think heart attack or cancer are a rarity, you might be in for a surprise), an accident, a failed financial investment, etc…

      Also, as you might realize, eliminating public schools could very well deprive your future children of the only chance of obtaining education. Under the free for all system that you champion, children would be working on an assembly line from dawn till dusk and education would be an unimaginable folly. If you don’t believe it, then you can go ahead and analyze any society prior to the headways made by human rights movements.

      * Eliminate all preventative law, ie regulatory interventionism

      You might not realize it, but what you are proposing is to eliminate such regulations as anti-trust laws. Which is an easy way to regress into a centralized socialism. There’s more to say here, but I’ll leave it at that.

      * Eliminate all egalitarian interventionism, ie anti-discrimination laws

      You are making a rather large assumption that you will always be part of a group that does the discriminating rather than the other way around. Or that sans regulating laws there will not be major abuses by those who happen to be in power and don’t have to abide by the system of checks and balances.

      * Require total financial responsibility for voting eligibility; which by definition there would be if there were no welfare state; women couldn’t vote for the confiscation and redistribution of wealth so they could do no damage

      If the postulates mentioned above were to be enacted, more than likely you wouldn’t have the right to vote either. It would be enough for those in power to say that you need to have $100 million net worth in order to qualify for “eligibility”. What would you do to complain? File a lawsuit? Government would not regulate discrimination, remember, so it would be perfectly legal.

      You might think that you would be a hotshot under an unregulated system, but you might be surprised. And even if you managed to weasel into someone’s good graces, you would be a subservient little bitch to your master or potentate, who would tell you when to eat, sleep, s**t and breed. And of course you would not need to burden yourself with a tedious task of thinking. Your betters would do that for you.

      Like


      • Most of your objections would be obviated by the fact it would be far easier to find work or another job. The downside to so much state inervention is that it becomes a privilege to even have work.

        Like


  13. In Belarus, feminism gets a kick in the ass:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16275566

    Like


    • Alphas.

      Like


    • The group says three women were blindfolded, taken to a forest, doused with oil and made to strip. Then they were threatened with being set on fire, and with a knife which was used to cut their hair.

      BELARUS: Never disappoints!

      Paging G.L. Piggy!!

      Femen says the ordeal was filmed, and the women were then left in the forest naked, with no documents. They managed to make their way by foot to a small village.

      lzozlzlzlzlzoozozoz n dass where dey met GBFM n got lotsa cockas 4 da ladiez !!!!!!!

      Like


    • God, even feminists in Eastern Europe are hotter than most of our American 19 yr. olds.

      Like


  14. Technically, we *are* apes – just as we are mammals, just as we are chordates.

    We’re just a specialized *type* of ape.

    A species doesn’t stop being what it is when it evolves – it just becomes a more specialized version of that thing.

    Like


  15. Wake up white man.

    You are different.

    You are unique.

    You will one day become extinct due to the demographic replacement that is going on all around you. Fight against your own extinction.

    All healthy life wants to fight for its own self-preservation, you too can do this. Fuck the smears of ‘racist’ or ‘hater’. They mean nothing. You and your genetic brothers and sisters went to the fucking moon while the darker races of the world squandered in poverty, ignorance, baseness.

    Like


  16. Yes, the free market eliminates poverty and crime. You sound like a Southern Baptist faith healer.

    Like


    • The poor will always be with us, it’s a question of whether we want to prosperous as a whole, or if we’ll just be a society where a connected few (cough cough Solyndra) get all the goodies. Idiotic ideas like economic equality and whatnot are just intellectual window dressing for totalitarians who laugh at useful idiots like you as you rebel against straw-boogey men like Southern Baptist faith healers. You may want to rethink the cause of crime and poverty in the inner city and its connection to the opposite of a free market.

      Like


    • Uhhh, dumbass reductio ad absurdum.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong

      Read and shut the fuck up. Oh, and their public debt? Less than 1% of GDP.

      But keep talking shit.

      Like


      • on December 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm John Norman Howard

        Hong Kong has the advantage of a relative homogenous population… that’s a HUGE advantage… that is, when said population is White or Yellow.

        Like


    • where do free market advocates claim that it eliminates crime? as long as its easier to acquire wealth through force and fraud rather than being a lawful, productive citizen, crime will persist. its human nature.

      but the free market does indeed eliminate poverty, as defined as ones who earn income below the minimum needed to afford basic necessities-food, clothing, and shelter. but if youre a liberal, then you define poverty as the bottom 20% of society. of course there will always exist a “bottom 20%” in any society, regardless of whether the GDP per capita is $10k or $100k.

      Like


      • Most crime is due to running illegal businesses and having to use violence to enforce contracts. If those businesses are legal, these same people have a way to earn an honest living.

        Like


    • The free market, history shows, does a far better job of reducing poverty and crime than socialism. Do you really think the. Sun Belt is in worse shape than labor socialist Detroit?
      That said, many African Americans and minorities who wish to work are moving to the Sun Belt, and are as fully capable as the average Whitey of benefitting from capitalism and democracy.

      Like


      • Are you claiming that crime rates in “socialist” Scandinavia or Communist China are higher than in the “home of the free” a.k.a the USA?

        Like


      • Sorry, Theo Van Gogh and the children of Tienanmen Square can’t hear you.

        Like


      • It depends on how you define crime and whether the perpetrator is pursued or not. Sweden is more entrepreneurial than the US now since reforms in the last ten years or so were implemented there. Civilized whites don’t commit a lot of crime in the US either. Muslims are magically not arrested for a lot of crime in Scandinavia because white police won’t go into their neighborhoods. Moreover, they don’t have a lot of blacks, who commit well over half our crime. Sweden openly discriminates against men. Sweden makes it really easy to be convicted of rape, if you’re white. Smoke dope there and you’ll likely get jail time, if you’re white. I say move there if you think its better. They need people, only you will likely have to work in the private sector there as a man, since they will need to exploit you in order to support the rest of the state and the two castes superior to you- women and immigrants. Europe is choking in equalist nonsense.Switzerland in the country to imitate, not Scandinavia.

        Like


      • whatever city or country, Blacks make up 51% of the population or more, it’s a failure.

        White France, Scandinavia = socialism works just fine. [recent increase in crime, rape, etc. is from “muslim” immigrants, but again huge difference in rates of Black and White (arab is ethnicity of white).]

        Like


  17. God I hate SWPLs.

    Like


  18. So, we go into Afghanistan, introduce democracy, and they’ll be just like us! Say what?

    So, we go into Iraq, introduce democracy, and they’ll be just like us! Say what?

    Separately, F. A. Hayek on tradition:

    To understand our civilisation, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection — the comparative increase of population and wealth — of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be ‘fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it’ (Genesis 1:28). This process is perhaps the least appreciated facet of human evolution.

    – F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: “INTRODUCTION: WAS SOCIALISM A MISTAKE?” pg 6.

    My Translation: The “old ways” got to be the old ways because they worked.

    Like


    • For those who disagree with you end translation, there is the following addendum. Yes, we live in a modern society where the elites have embarked on a course of social engineering and have worked to subvert traditions that have cause Western European society to lead the world. The result is a coming period of chaos that is likely to make the Great Depression (which is commonly acknowledged now by many to have actually been made WORSE by the economic and social engineering attempted in the USA) look like a minor recession. Play God with how people interact at your own risk. And sadly, everyone else.

      Like


  19. Genetic determinism does not equate with fate. If a person dies from an anvil falling on their head, then we must say that that event had nothing to do with genetics. Physiology simply cannot and never will tell us whether or not free will exists.

    Determinism in general I find to be an uplifting view. If you were born to suck it is easier to get on with your fate then bear the burden of responsibly as to why you suck.

    Second, the is-ought problem. We cannot get valid public policy from the “facts” of our being. Of course, I find it impossible to get any kind of ought statement without at least a consideration of how the world is. “If girls want alphas, then men should become alphas.” Logically this statement is a fallacy, but pragmatically, it works.

    Lastly, personal identity or the mind= biochemistry? Where is the proof?
    If we call all be like Bradley Cooper and take a pill and become limitless, then it seems something like that would be out now. I am doubtful to the idea that we can reduce people to genes a,b,c and switch them with super genes x,y,z to make up for their genetic imbalances.

    Humans are complicated. This “social science” above has always tried to reduce people to simple mechanistic formulas. Which, in a few decades, become laughable untruths, like psychoanalysis, psychiatry, medicine, Marxism, and Reaganomics. Not that I do not subscribe to a naturalistic worldview, however, doubt is never a bad thing.

    Like


  20. “- That social structure is shaped by environment — for instance, a species whose food is widely dispersed may need to live in large groups.

    – And the so-called social brain hypothesis: that intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.”

    So pre-history Europe and Europeans vs. pre-history Africa and Africans?

    Like


  21. Source: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/12/this-is-so-worst-thing-youre-going-to.html

    I especially looooooove the insistence that the richest people in the country are rich exclusively because of hard work and perseverance. “Instead of an attack on the 1%, let’s call it an attack on the very productive.” Ha ha sure. Let’s do that, fucko.

    But first, let’s you and I see which one of us works harder in a day. Let’s see if you or the last waitress who served you works harder in a day. Let’s see if you or any one of the hundreds of people in service jobs with whom you come into contact on a daily basis whose humanity you don’t even notice, no less acknowledge, works harder in a day. Let’s see if you or a homeless person just trying to stay warm, fed, and alive works harder in a day.

    Let’s do that math, and then let’s indeed call the increasing divide between the haves and the have-nots in this richest country in the world “an attack on the very productive.”

    Productivity isn’t the issue. The kind of work we choose to value and the people whom we choose to do that value is.

    This is how feminists and equalists think.

    They honestly believe that the CEO’s work is just LIKE a waitress, fry cook, or homeless person and that the CEO doesn’t have to work his ass off and make sure that millions of those waitresses, cooks, etc. have jobs.

    Like serving a dish or cleaning a toilet takes massive brainpower or years of training.

    And, last time I checked, the entire company won’t go down the toilet (heh) if you get a fucking order wrong at the restaurant.

    Like


    • Agreed. Their is no understanding that the only reason that waitress has a job in a chain restaurant or a local diner is because some man had the vision to start a restaurant, invested his life savings, reinvested the profits, and worked insane hours to make it a success. Oh yeah, and at the same time provided jobs for countless other people with out the drive or vision to do the same. I say this as someone who is still looking for an idea to latch on to, but thanks to the equalizers, busybodies, and others of that type me and others like me have to be even more cautious. Which means more unemployed waitresses amongst others.

      Like


    • on December 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm John Norman Howard

      By that author’s reckoning (and I use both words “author” and “reckoning” loosely), horses and mules should have been given the vote during the 19th century.

      Like


    • CEOs get paid based on perceived market value and whatever they can get in a negotiation. Sometimes compensation is tied to metrics, but these are usually related to stock performance, not productivity.

      So she’s essentially correct, though her point isn’t succinct.

      Like


    • If your an unemployed English or Gender Studies major, this makes great sense to you because deep down you know you have no marketable skills and wasted your education on what is really Marxist Studies, so you have to demand comparable worth. This is especially true if you’re an AP English type who has had other qualitative intellectuals telling you how brilliant you are since age 16 because you read Kierkegaard.

      Like


    • “What we choose to value”… There is a debate feminists raised, on why nurses should get the same pay as engineers, since “equal pay for equal work” is such a great principle. But isn’t it just supply and demand? Low supply and/or high demand means high pay. And vice versa.

      Like


  22. “For instance, (and to use a very obvious example), a man with a genetic predisposition to criminality can have his unobstructed destiny to inflict pain and suffering on others severely altered by a long prison stint.”

    From what I have seen a fair portion of these become lawyers, politicians, and members of law enforcement. Once they do that of course it is OK. They channel their energies into productive things. Like destroying society by creating absurd or down right evil laws or enforcing them with extreme prejudice (the number of unarmed, non-violent, or just plain misidentified people killed each year in the USA is something they work very hard to keep quiet). I’m old enough to remember when you could trust the police outside of the city at least.

    Like


  23. I’m still a firm believer in mind over genetic predisposition. I think it is possible to overcome predefined adversity through sheer will alone.

    A somewhat cliched example but look at someone like Bruce Lee, a gangly awkward young man that managed to transform himself physically and mentally through determination. Though I guess you could argue that was down to his genetic make up.

    Like


    • Are you aware that “sheer will” is also a genetic trait?

      Like


    • And there lies 0.01% the difference between us and apes perhaps? I think We are all driven by the same thing at the most basic level, to create good feelings in our brain and prevent bad ones but maybe Something snapped in our brains and made us seek to explore and create new pathaways to pleasure, and thus culture, creativity ego etc are born.

      While the apes are content with eating food, fucking as many females as possible and asserting dominance on one another we hopped down from the tree’s and started seeking new ways to get high.

      Like bruce lee through strict determination changed his physical appearance and lifestyle to to one where his brain rewards him for delaying instant gratification.

      However just because these new pathways exist doesn’t mean those old ones aren’t still there and strongly seated in our brains, I’m sure bruce lee enjoyed fucking hot women just as much as the ape and the only reason he was living this crazy strict lifestyle because it made him feel more of a ‘dominant’ man.

      For example when we see an ugly guy with a hot girl our cultured human brains bring up that cliche of how she must be just some gold digger after his money how pathetic, however deep down we’re also thinking, damn what a lucky guy I’d love to be fucking her.

      Like


    • Bruce Lee was Bruce Lee because he was born with good genes (99%) and then trained hard (1%). Your mix genes at birth largely determines how good an athlete you can possibly be, relative to other people.

      So when people tell you that the fat, slow kid in 8th grade can work his way into being a good athlete, it is like someone telling you the retarded kid in nunior high can work hard and then become a math wiz. No, they cannot. Biology is at the very least a limitation on destiny in many ways, and we all know it, even if we do not want to admit it.

      The short story is that the outlier raw talent has to be there for the person’s work to actually result in achieving significant outlier status on the bell curve. And some people have such raw talent, they don’t even have to work at it much to achieve outlier status.

      Sorry, but if you believe otherwise, you are accepting the pretty lie.

      Like


  24. If genes would really determine the structure of societies, economics and et cetera how could you explain revolutions, major changes in poltical systems, (such as from monarchies to democracies and so on), financial crashes or widespread individual actions which run completely contrary to the main current of a culture within populations which remained genetically stable (no mass scale immigration occured for example)?

    As a matter of fact, you cannot.

    Genes certainly play an important role, but to suggest, that they play the predominant role is just reductionist thinking marxism-style – with the difference that leftists fuck you over with their class-based theories while racists fuck you over with race-based theories.

    The end result is always the same: The individual is caged and disgraced in favor of phantasized groups such as “races” or “classes”. Race-based theories as well as class-based theories both lead to the end of Western-style freedom and democracy.

    So if you like that, then just head over to North Korea or to a random Muslim country of your choice – just leave the rest of the sane people alone with this leftist thinking in disguise nonsense.

    Like


    • If biology is so powerful, how did we wind up with so anti-biological a culture in the first place?

      Korea is a perfect example of how culture (Stalinism vs. capitalism + democracy) can diametrically transform biologically homogeneous population in opposite directions in only a couple-three generations.

      Like


      • Not related to race, but to gender (but still close to this topic): if the gender roles were so biological, then we wouldn’t have feminism right now. But biological differences are still there as fundament. How societies organize their men and women is not biological though.

        Like


    • I don’t see a huge variation in any of the cultures you’ve used as examples. North Korea had a cult figurehead that was the leader of an oligarchy consisting of mostly warrior caste members. Supported by a complicit underclass that prefers living to execution. Patriarchy is the norm for backwards dirt farmers and their harem owning oil rich theocracy.

      Revolutions have been for the most part in favor of mob rule until they get hijacked because the anarchy of an ochlocracy invites yet more leaders that understand the poor stupid brutes need to be forced into line.

      As far as the progression from monarchy to democracy, wtf? That isn’t a universal progression like most of religious evolutions world wide from elemental / aspect / folk worship to monotheism or basically atheism with a strong culture of superstition. With the US government running around toppling the natural order how could you actually claim to have a relevant and large enough sample for the progression of third world from monarchy / theocracy to republic? The left alone countries actually skew in a different direction from what you claim, towards communism and socialism with tyrannical leaders. That diversity isn’t against the article or genes though, it shows a continued demonstration of natures abhorrence of vacuums and that leaders and governments will arise.

      Diversity in groups even at the tribal level can be explained by ecology such as Australian aboriginals genital mutilation in a sparse environment, it occurs for cultural reasons, but with an obvious advantage gained by the cock splitting aboriginal. In a more bountiful environment a bigger tribe with a less maladaptive belief system would have destroyed a tribe that practiced the beliefs of the aboriginals quickly. Whether the first cock splitter was just a crazy masochist because of his genes or if the site of his fugly girlfriends menstrual blood actually made him believe he too had to bleed from his cock; his sons didn’t have to murder each other for food or as food because that practice led to a sustainable group.

      Just as today in the absence of the supposedly maladaptive and unfair patriarchy we now have feminized institutions in charge of educating the underclass at war with the stupid but confident religious right. Who would normally have their beliefs protected as to insure stability amongst the herd. The basic truths of human nature have been cast aside in under a century in favor of counter intuitive, anti intellectual girrrl power.

      No individual rights exist, just individuals. Individuals with a genetic code that compels them to get the best possible mates and highest status they can attain, while suppressing the competition. If you believe our western society is so fucking great you can stick around when all the smart people start abandoning ship because the country keeps heading down the NDAA / SOPA route. If you think the police force clashing with the occupy movement is any more intelligent than the North Korean soldiers executing spies and civilian collaborators, you are the one laboring under delusions. Getting someone to go against what they know is right is tough, getting them to not think about it is leadership.

      Like


    • Manifold wrote:

      Genes certainly play an important role, but to suggest, that they play the predominant role is just reductionist thinking marxism-style….

      I tried, brother. Don’t waste your time. There’s higher order thinking, and there’s contingent thinking. You can only present the case over their “NUH UH!!!” so many times before it gets tiresome.

      Then again, maybe you have more patience than I have. If that’s the case, godspeed. Just don’t get frustrated by the hard-headed resistance. Be always mindful of this fact: either a man limbers up his mind with a real liberal arts education from 15-25 and makes it receptive to the deepest understanding, or he is forever trapped in whatever epistemological stasis he inherited randomly.

      Gene phrenology is the technique most accessible today to dullard students who came to their intellectual vigor later in life. It is an encouraging liberation to see them flower in their 20s and 30s, but they can never understand what still limits them. They are too exhilarated by breaking the chains and escaping their cell to acknowledge the possibility that they trapped on a prison island, albeit by distant walls and shores.

      Our efforts are best directed to the young. Make your point in the presence of intellectual charlatanism, but don’t dwell on it. Rather, “if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.” Your energies are best spent elsewhere.

      Like


      • Heh. Hehehe. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Man you are full of yourself. Lets’s see, appeal to authority. I have a BA in History, graduated with department honors, president of the local chapter of the International History Honor Society. Twenty-one years ago and before several “realignments” (read devaluation) in test scores I scored in the 95th percentile on my GRE. After spending a year at a liberal (I was the only one other than one Ross Perot supporter that didn’t vote for Clinton) grad program I wised up and dropped out. I could see that the idea of “if we can only engineer society a little more, we can make everyone equal” that they constantly pushed was a load. The guy that is five foot nothing will never be as good as good at basketball as the one who was born with the athletic ability and stand six and half feet. Your inability to read the fine print on the contract that comes with being human “results may vary”, indicates that the charlatan is the one that looks back at you in the mirror each day. Sadly, the efforts of your ilk have created generations of confused children who no longer see a need to maintain the society they grew up in. The results of your tinkering is not even a regression to the mean for many. It is a regression to the lowest common denominator.

        Like


      • Then I defer. I know better than to mess with a “president of the local chapter of the International History Honor Society” and anyone who accomplished “the 95th percentile on [his] GRE.”

        There’s a reason — one which obviously eludes you — why argumentum ad verecundiam was coined as a term of fallacy. Long experience with your type indicates that the man who volunteers his C.V. without prompting is impervious to persuasion.

        But hey, brother, we’re simpatico! I too dropped out of my Ph.D. program for similar reasons to yours. And yet there is a limit to credentialism that you seem not to have encountered, despite the promising rebelliousness of your self-abbreviated academic career. I’d give you a list of initials after my name too if I gave a fuck. I’d rather my work speak for itself. So should you.

        I pushed through what little content you provide above three times before giving up. Your work is speaking for itself, and it’s gibberish. “Sadly, the efforts of your ilk have created generations of confused children who no longer see a need to maintain the society they grew up in.” I can’t fathom where you gleaned this opposite conclusion from what I wrote, and I don’t want to fathom it. Life’s short.

        Final tip: Don’t begin a criticism with the giggle fits. It comes off as seriously omega, like an anime tee shirt.

        Like


  25. Please provide ANY supporting evidence whatsoever that racially-based, intra-species gene pools, themselves dilluted by thousands of years of miscegenation with each other, could conceivably be as genetically distinct from one another as baboons and lemurs. This is the baseless leap of logic you’ve made by connecting this study to that blog post.

    Like


    • Well said.

      Even more fundamentally, if you pitch two groups against each other in a battle for limited resources, the one left standing will, statistically, be the one best shaped by the environment as of now, not as it was umpteen millennia ago.

      Because computation is expensive, a fairly slow changing environment have encouraged some part of reality space to be precomputed and stored genetically; but over time, environmental adaption is the name of the game.

      As for public policy, the notion that “we”, because we have read some gibberish in some drivel spewing publication, know enough to once and for all declare what would be the “best” one, is simply laughable. Whatever meager knowledge people have, have been garnered scientifically; that is by exposing every hypothesis to attempts at falsification in never ending recursion.

      That is also the only way “public policy” will ever evolve in anything resembling a positive direction; rather than simply vacillating from one silly fashion to another. Practically, that means getting rid of any “policy” enforced over a geographic region extending far enough to make it expensive for inhabitants to exit if they don’t like their lot. That way, you’ll run thousands of parallel experiments in “public policy” concurrently, each learning from each other as they go along. Over time, that will get us somewhere, something nothing else will, save perhaps prayer to an interventionist deity.

      Like


      • exposing every hypothesis to attempts at falsification in never ending recursion

        The never-ending recursion of the modern white man’s inability to forthrightly distinguish kin from not-kin is all I see.

        Russian gymnasts don’t bend this far backward.

        Like


    • Previous comment should sufficiently end all debate on the subject, but if you’re up for it, go ahead and account for the versatility of structure and mating system among societies of genetically indistinguishable humans. Plenty of genetic diversity among chimps, but all chimps have the same social structure – how does your genetic determinism explain why humans vary so widely, e.g. from Utah Mormons to Sub-Saharan Africans?

      Also might be interesting to hear an explanation of how a genetic predilection for certain types of social structures creates the rational justification for a less equitable distribution of wealth. Looking forward to hearing that one.

      Fact is, genes play a much larger role in just about everything than anyone living in the post-enlightenment West admits, but you’re dramatically overreaching with your assumption that this has any consistency within racial categories, and your logic is shoddy and limited enough to actually lend credence to the “genetic basis for low IQ” hypothesis. That ain’t a compliment. Your mental faculties are better than this. Please think these things through before you post them.

      Like


    • The degree of mescegenation you cite is exaggerated and the mescegentation which occurred generally occurred within groups that had a similar enough genetic make up to not upset the basic cultural template. Most of the tribal migrations occurred among Germanic or Celtic peoples in the West, and in Asia, mescegenation occurred among Turkic or Gothic peoples or Turkic with Chinese.

      Like


  26. “Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity.”

    Yeah, these pretty lie arguments always imply that culture and genetics are some independent variables when in reality culture is an emergent property of group (or average/mode) genetic traits.

    Like


  27. on December 20, 2011 at 4:51 pm | ReplyPhil
    Wake up white man.

    You are different.

    You are unique.

    You will one day become extinct due to the demographic replacement that is going on all around you. Fight against your own extinction.

    All healthy life wants to fight for its own self-preservation, you too can do this. Fuck the smears of ‘racist’ or ‘hater’. They mean nothing. You and your genetic brothers and sisters went to the fucking moon while the darker races of the world squandered in poverty, ignorance, baseness.
    —————————————————————————————————

    Excuse me, but Phil,

    did YOU go to the moon?
    Did YOU invent anything great and vast of value to humanity?

    Why are you taking credit for things other white people did?

    Do you also take credit for what Jeffery Dhamer did?

    Do you take credit for what the captain of the Exxon Valdez did?

    You’ve been white your entire life and what do you have to show for it?

    WTF?

    You hate niggers but you speak and act like one?

    (((shakin my head)))

    Im sorry to break the news to you guys but the overwhelming majority of you white people are just some plain nabisco saltines… you ain’t unique, you ain’t “special”…
    you got some pale skin, and maybe some blue eyes and blond hair, you ain’t done anything of signifigence in this world, but you expect a medal and a gold star for looking like a white person?

    You gotta be kidding me.

    When ever niggers say: “Im proud to be black!”, I always ask them: “what did you DO to make your self black?”

    Unless your goal is to function as a nigger by engaging in niggardly thinking, why don’t you try taking credit for something YOU DID, instead of riding some white dick you had nothing to do with?

    Like


    • You make some good points. Being an individual within a prosperous and great racial group does not make one great. It is one’s ability and strength to contribute to that group that does.

      Meritocracy rules all – and only those without aptitude will claim otherwise. Meritocracy is stronger than race. An intelligent black man is better than a thick white man and, from a personal perspective, I would prefer to spend time with the former rather than latter. This is the problem with most white racialist groups. While those of European origin have – for the most part – shaped and ruled the earth as kings for millenia, a typical white man is not superior to a typical coloured man. While the likes of Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar were walking, talking Hectors; the vast majority of white men are not.

      Of course, us of European descent should certainly show more and push for greater racial identity. The death wish and white guilt we have experienced from the latter half of the 20th century will do our bloodline in. Other races do not have this issue, but it is one the white race has to quickly address. Ironically, Hitler, the ‘great evil’ of the 20th century european west, may have been its saviour.

      Like


      • An intelligent black man is better than a thick white man and, from a personal perspective, I would prefer to spend time with the former rather than latter.

        I think you just failed the ethnic mirror test.

        a typical white man is not superior to a typical coloured man.

        Not only untrue, but a failure of kin recognition. One is ours and one is not. You don’t abandon allegiance to race because you meet someone of low mind. You accept and suffer him, or part company.

        Men are happiest when their faces and voices are reflected in their fellows. Even if the fellows are cunts.

        Of course, us of European descent should certainly show more and push for greater racial identity.

        One way to begin is to avoid such disclaimers as that.

        Like


    • on December 21, 2011 at 4:02 pm John Norman Howard

      And yet collective White guilt for colonialism/slavery/etc. is the order of the day by you shitskins.

      And nothing else has been as pumped and trumped as “black pride” over the past few generations, championed by numbskulls such as yourself.

      Can’t have it both ways, Sambo.

      Like


      • Collective guilt can be turned about too.SWPLS are guilty for the crimes of Stalin if I’m guilty for the crimes of Custer. Thwack is in turn guilty of the crimes of Robert Mugabe.

        Like


  28. on December 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm anarky in da uk

    You racist. How can you think that Kanye West and Beethoven aren’t mental equals? I bet you want to kill off 6 million jews, too.

    Like


    • Kanye a prodigy? Beethoven transplanted to the future with the same equipment as Kanye would create 1000x more historically significant material. Kanye transplanted to the past would just be a slave. HEYOOOOO

      Like


  29. Two things:
    1. They talk about different species of Old World monkeys; there is a lot more genetic difference there than between races. All human races will tend to the same type of society.
    2. laissez-faire in heterogeneous societies is your only choice: though a homogeneous society is better.

    Like


  30. apparently only the scientific method can explain the reason why there is life on earth but in order for us to understand why there are chinatowns where there are chinese we need to turn to fuzzy cultural theories

    Like


    • chinatowns are praxiologically delimited spaces permitting the interrogation of white heternormativity in the urban power structure,

      lozozozoz

      Like


  31. “Evolutionary change in any particular lineage is highly constrained by the lineage’s phylogenetic history,” Dr. Chapais said, referring to the evolutionary family tree. “This reasoning applies to all species, including ours. But in humans, cultural variation hides both the social unity of humankind and its biological foundation.”

    Uh-huh. You can come up with any conclusion you want when you speak like a weasel. Cultural variation hides the biological foundation of human society? Good luck explaining what the fuck that means without begging the question a hundred times over.

    Like


    • It’s the same logic that says, “We’re all the same, therefore we should celebrate our differences. Except for whites, who don’t exist, but are responsible for all the world’s ills.”

      Like


    • It means people have a tendency to pay more conscious attention to cultural differences than cultural similarities. Similarities get taken for granted, filtered out like white noise, or assumed implicitly and subconsciously.

      I’m not sure why that’s objectionable or, even, the least bit surprising.

      Like


      • The quote was not about cultural similarities — it was about a biological foundation for “humankind,” which is weasel talk for “human nature.”

        The only way to come up with a so-called coherent concept of human nature is to exclude an extremely long list of people. Whatever your concept of human nature, barring the genuine but banal list of universals (e.g., smiling when happy) listed by Steven Pinker, there will always be an exception.

        Like


  32. Heartiste

    the old guard will work tirelessly to smear anyone who dares draw the arrow from human genetic predisposition to informed social policy.

    The emerging fatal flaw of humanity’s genetics is cognizance, and the irresistible power to destroy granted by its relentless pursuit of self-analyzing that awareness.

    Like


  33. Science is the Jackson Pollock to leftism’s blank slate? Not really. Contrary to popular belief, leftists are not girlish upotian optimists, they are hard-nosed ruthless bastards. They don’t give a damn about the blank slate. They’ll switch from social to genetic engineering in the blink of an eye.

    As scary as today’s politically correct dystopia is, it’s a paradise compared to the society our tyrannical elites will create once they’re actually capable of rewriting human nature.

    Like


  34. This is not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of proof (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). “Genes aren’t destiny” is non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)), because something doesn’t have to be destiny to influence behavior.

    Artem.

    Like


  35. It may amuse you to know that I have declared White Nationalism itself dead, to be replaced by … well, you:

    http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//some_early_thoughts_about_camerons_veto#post-c

    Like


  36. “the theory of buying chicks stuff on the first date in hopes of sex”

    That actually works.
    As long as they are hookers.

    Like


  37. “Genes a stronger influence on social structure — aka culture — than the environment? Now who was it said something similar not too long ago on this very outpost of mortifying truths?”

    Evolution is pushed by the environment and pure luck, and correspond to the elements of selective pressure on allele distribution and genetic drift, respectively.

    In other words you are genes are distributed the way you are precisely because of the environment. You’re incorrect on this assertion, Heartiste.

    Like


  38. the theory of buying chicks stuff on the first date in hopes of sex:

    Like


  39. Francis Galton coined the phrase, “nature vs. nurture.” I think he could have gone a little further and said nurture reinforces nature.

    Like


  40. “Teenage model, 16, killed herself under train after boy cancelled their cinema date by text message”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076557/Model-Gabby-Joesph-16-killed-train-boy-cancelled-cinema-date.html#ixzz1h9Jg1mmF

    Guess who it was. Can you spot the alpha?

    Like


  41. Gentlemen, We are all, most of us anyway, Students of History. We compulsively read every detail we can dig up in regard to the episodes that fascinate us.. It is more than likely that many who come here already know A LOT of history.
    So, before I pass out tonight I thought I should toss out this challenge; – name the time and place where you imagined that your most righteous instincts and legitimate state interest were most properly aligned for the production of the most robust kind of society. Within normal historical
    My first choice is the UK , otherwise known as “England” during the absolutely life and death period of struggle in the mid to late 18th century wars of survival-or-not against the proto-Hitler- Napolean

    Like


    • As my name suggests, I think ancient Sparta could be considered the ideal State.

      Like


      • They built their monuments in flesh.

        Like


      • Am with you. Anyplace sunny where the people are European, vigorous, and pre-Christian. No “state”, no franchise, no pampered women. A world to explore.

        Like


      • I’m not so sure about that. Sparta didn’t allow men and women to share the same sleeping quarters and it was very equalist among the Homoioi (Equals). Sparta also had institutionalized homosexuality, no money system, no navy, few cultural achievments, children raised in common, and existed by subjugating neighboring peoples as a permenant serf caste. Sparta became weak over time because their policies on marriage and family life killed their reproductive capacity. By the time of the Battle of Leuctra, the state was only able to field an army of about 1500 Equals versus 8000 prior to the Peloponnesian War.

        Like


      • Wait, wait, Tyrone.

        In Lacedaemonia there was:

        – No woman to smother one in bed
        – No anxiety about money
        – No mercantilism (no navy)
        – No cultural distractions to shame people for not being good enough to produce or understand them
        – Strong community
        – War as gymnastic

        … yea, I’m still with Laconophile. I’d even take one for the team if necessary.

        Like


      • Although Athens lost the Peloponnesian War, it was winning for about 25 years out of 30 and won all of the conflicts between Athens and Sparta before then. Athenian Hoplites were the equals of Spartan Hoplites. About the only thing I prefer about Sparta, is fewer double talking, double crossing politicians. Moreover, once Sparta declined it never revived. Athens revived itself many times. I consider the Athenian social model superior for these reasons.

        Like


    • Rome during the second Punic war.

      Like


    • Roman Republic

      Two kings who serve for one year each? Two houses of congress, one for the rich and one for everyone else?

      Fuck yeah.

      Like


    • Nice choice.

      For me I’d go with the German Reich in 1882 – with Bismarck in command of diplomacy and Moltke in charge of the armed forces.

      A powerful empire, its culture blossoming incredibly (Wagner), its scientists unrivaled (the car, chemistry etc. etc.), its economy booming with factories spouting up everywhere, its society homogenic, fierce and proud.

      It was Germany’s golden age. Too bad some dweeby shlub (Wilhelm II.) screwed things, totally.

      The tragedy of Germany: Too successful to be popular, too strong to be kept in cheque, yet too weak to ultimately win. Placed in the thick of things…it occupied a noman’s land eternally on the brink & oscillating between total victory and absolute, utter crushing defeat. .

      And on the Reich’s waltz on the tightrope *one misstep*, alone, could ruin things totally – as subsequently transpired.

      The US, Russia, even the UK could survive incompetent slobs. But Germany….couldn’t.

      Like


    • on December 21, 2011 at 8:16 pm John Norman Howard

      Central to Northern Europe, after the battle of Tours.

      Like


  42. It does not follow from the fact that social predispositions are genetically innate that redistribution is a policy that goes against the natural grain.

    Humans are naturally socialist. That’s an innate genetic predisposition.

    Like


    • Humans are naturally socialist. That’s an innate genetic predisposition.

      Like greed and kin preference. The latter is supposed to guide the sharing of resources. So, humans are naturally capitalist and racist, too.

      “National” comes of course from natio, birth, so it obviously means pertaining to those of like birth, and if humans are innately socialist, why, we have ourselves an argument for ….

      What happens when a race outgrows / trades in / has suppressed kin preference for mass sharing with non-kin?

      What happens to society and the race it depends on when women, who in distribution games invariably distribute equally despite labor disparity in a given task, are allowed to vote and voice opinions of right and belonging?

      Like


      • Yup, we are also innately group oriented and selfish.

        The various conflicting desires and strategies exist within us and around us, in opposition and in tension.

        So it doesn’t make sense to say that our socio-biology is an argument against one of our innate tendencies.

        I agree with you that we need to balance care and concern for others with taking care of our closer kin, and I agree that care can be too expensive when there is no reciprocity, and must be meted out judiciously.

        Like


  43. Interesting reading.

    This reminds of an old BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6057734.stm

    Do the elites view humanity like this?

    Like


  44. Anyone else think that Kobe Bryant is kinda beta based on how he acts in front of his wife?

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-kobe-vanessa-bryant-through-the-years-pg,0,7942999.photogallery

    Like


  45. Fools. “Leftists” are fully aware of all of this and they’ve been genetically engineering the West into a Third World, mud-infested shithole for the last century.

    “Leftists” are in reality staunch fascists/racists (not that there’s anything wrong with that) out to destroy their fiercest competition (whites) by means of socialism and miscegenation. All of these “leftists” promote destructive policies with such zeal only when they’re outside of Israel.

    The minute they use their dual-citizenship and step foot in the land of Zion they stop being socialists and start being national socialists of the strictest order.

    Like


    • Can I get a wake up, white man?

      Like


    • A+++: lozlzlzoozz

      Like


    • Well said, Alfred.

      “‘Tis for thee but not for me” is the tribe’s motto.

      Like


    • on December 21, 2011 at 8:18 pm John Norman Howard

      Hear, hear!

      Like


    • i do wonder if their liberal leanings in regard to immigration has a lot to do with their recognition of a possible failure of israel as a jewish state if/when it is demographically overrun. a liberal immigration policy here will be needed to accommodate the hordes of israeli refugees.

      i don’t relish the prospect. even some jews i know dislike them. my hasidic neighbor called them thieves and advised me never to do business with them. (they ripped her off redoing her kitchen). another who traveled there was appalled by their rudeness. when a jewish person feels so strongly they can overcome their seige mentality long enough to complain about co-ethnics to gentiles, pay attention. i know a few myself and most fit the stereotype. sorry to sound bigoted.

      Like


      • Well we don’t want to sound bigoted here at the Chateau.

        Ahem.

        I LIVE IN A KIBBUTZ IN NORTH MIAMI, half-Jew, half-Israeli, and it is generally true, yes. Israelis = SUPER CHUTZPAH. Siege mentality raised to the tenth power. Everything bad about Jews to begin with + fresh Levantine attitudes. Mostly they just ignore you and everything not of their immediate attention.

        But you’ve seen nothing until you’ve walked through a pack of Argentine Jews …

        And no, carolyn honey, the Jewish commitment to “liberal” (understatement of the week) immigration is not some convoluted long-play to accommodate poor poor Israeli refugees (ouch! stubbed my toe on your multimillion-dollar yacht there, Avram), though of course that is one benefit. It stems DIRECTLY FROM THE CELLER LAW OF ’65 that was indeed to let in more Eastern European Jews, and whoever the fuck else.

        Jews are in love with immigration because they are in hate with us. Simple.

        Like


      • on December 23, 2011 at 12:26 pm John Norman Howard

        Jews are in love with immigration because they are in hate with us.

        Every time I read an uh post I think of Bogey and Rains at the end of Casablanca…. “this could be the start of a beautiful friendship”.

        Well done, my friend.

        Like


      • Oh yea, to give credit where due, I will say this. There are just two races of women who will make eyes at uh — Haitians and young Orthodox girls. Every time I pass these girls there’s one little Esther who lets her eyes linger on the handsome Aryan traif passing by. Given their sheltered lives and function as baby-machines, it isn’t surprising their lust wanders on occasion.

        Like


    • So the same tribe that didn’t allow an interracial kiss on television until 1968, and that separated races on The Dating Game TV show at least into the 1990s (as far as I know, they never mixed whites and blacks on the show)- and that has allowed its very black Ethiopian population of first and second generation immigrants to grow to 121,000 – is out to destroy other whites by means of miscegenation.

      My Israeli cousin who is a member of this tribe, and who primarily dates Ethiopan and Filipina immigrants, will be very interested in hearing this this.

      I haven’t had a good hallucination in a long time. What are you guys on, and where can I get it?

      Like


      • on December 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm John Norman Howard

        Your NAJALT cousin’s penchant for dark meat notwithstanding:

        What they media masters allegedly didn’t allow in the sixties is one thing… when White cultural norms from the Dispossessed Majority (soon to be) still held some sway.

        (For the record, the toe was already in the water with the overly-lauded Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner… 100 Rifles with newly-crowned sex symbol doing Jim Brown… and whatever movie it was with blonde bombshell Stella Stevens schtupping a schwarze were soon to follow… but I digress).

        Seen TV and movies lately, my Yidda?

        Of course, the Jews don’t own or control the major media… no siree! And to prove it, just hint at such and all those righteous Gentiles who are really running the show will see to it that you never work in this town again, (:rolleyes)

        Like


      • The Dating Game segregation was maintained well into the 90s. I’m not sure if it ever integrated.

        Anyway, what you are really complaining about, then, John, is not that Jews have been pushing the limits of miscegenation, but rather not providing a bulwark against it, because if you think there are more interracial couplings on TV than in real life in the United States, we haven’t been hanging out in the same places – not to mention that what we see in public is probably only a tip of the iceberg compared to the 5 AM booty calls.

        Like


      • on December 23, 2011 at 3:26 pm John Norman Howard

        I’m decrying BOTH the Jew as cultural corrupter AND the White man for his cowardice.

        What’s your point? One is never to say anything about the Jew for his misdeeds and hypocrisy?

        It goes without saying that the Jew only gets away with what a society lets him… maybe YT’s time of dominance of… indeed, existence on… this mortal coil is coming to an end.

        More’s the pity… even for the Jew.

        Like


      • Yes, the same tribe that pushed miscegenation at the earliest opportunity. Prior to the civil rights movement (which jews headed) whites would have never tolerated it. Even in 1968 it was controversial.

        As for the ethiopian jews, they are hardly welcome in Israel (although it seems your cousin has found a use for them). Most jews do not consider them real (ethnic) jews and never marry them.

        Like


  46. Oh, and, why is gold so damn high?

    Like


    • Cause, God help us, Ron paul and GBFM are sort of right…the fed has monetized our debt, and in an effort to make things look good for investors, devalued the dollar, so as to artificially raise the Dow Jones back to around 12K, at the price of cutting the value of the dollar in half … proof being gold doubling in price, and gas doubling in price, compared to the US dollar.

      But, who cares, Obama is awesome, and feminists-equalists-and-economists (at least the psuedo-fascist government spending equals win economists like Susan Feinberg) will vote for him no matter what.

      Like


  47. on December 21, 2011 at 9:42 am GreenHairyTroll

    This is all fine and dandy and it’s fun to watch me mentally masturbate, too , but this idea that the “elites” will adopt your ideas is somewhat paradoxical given your argument.
    Will a bunch of glorified naked apes adopt your views? Perhaps if Lancashire England were a homogeneous self governed state, but alas human frailty is much more concerned with being ruled by glorified gangsters who tell any lie to retain power. The anomaly of the temporary Anglo Saxon period of sane government has come and passed.

    Like


  48. The only part I disagree with is your assesment on this line item – “laissez-faire libertarianism in heterogeneous societies”

    Laissex faire libertarianism is basically a merit based situation. Either I am misunderstanding your intent with that statement or you have a misunderstanding on what libertarianism represents.

    Like


  49. Rationalization Hamster 500 as women bloggers claim that women over 40 have a huge chance of getting married again or for the first time:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/the-rationalization-hamster-500/

    Is it true, by the way, that a US soldier has to serve 20 years to get a pension but a woman can marry him for 7 years and she can divorce him and get half that pension?

    Like


  50. Genes influence culture in a huge way? Economists will be shocked!

    Like


  51. On Heartiste’s Theodore Dalrymple tweet:

    Hell yes, read all the Dalrymple you can. (That’s his pen-name. So read “Anthony Daniels” too.) He is an expatriate Brit/former prison doctor who escaped the chaos of London to park himself “poolside” in your beloved France. He is an atheist/agnostic, too, so no worries about him accidentally proselytizing you. Absolutely one of the best topical writers alive.

    http://www.amazon.com/Theodore-Dalrymple/e/B001HOAFBW/

    Like


    • Life At The Bottom is a great book. For men.

      Like


    • Anthony Daniels and, say, David Bentley Hart, such unsurprising bedfellows in 2012. One sees this same conjunction right here on CH.

      Almost all intelligent men fear the future. I should say: hate the future.

      And here it comes with its red and angry mug.–

      Like


      • Funny you should say that.

        I was asked once if I feared an impending surgical procedure known for great pain. I said, no, I don’t fear pain.

        “What do you fear?”

        It came to me suddenly. “The future.”

        The idea “future” rests on anxiety. The specter of pain is a fear. In this way, the unknown will always haunt man more than the known, however painful it be.

        Like


      • Speaking of Hart, he just flayed to bits Steven Pinker’s “precious” magnum opus in a dozen paragraphs. It’s an intellectual separation of the men from the boys, a demonstration of the force of mind and rhetoric with which one should seek alliance: go with Dalrymple and Hart (and about ten others on the short list) above Pinker and Gould (and the rest of those frustrated sci-fi theologians).

        n/a wrote: “Almost all intelligent men fear the future. I should say: hate the future.”

        It’s not intelligence so much as perceptiveness, now combined with the realization that the ball is in our court now. The gray eminences are dying out, they have already faded into senescence, and “the future” is up to us alone.

        Trepidation accompanies responsibility, but it shouldn’t bloom into “fear” or “hate” or anything close to it. I have the same adrenaline rush facing the abyss, but I channel it into exhilaration rather than Fear and Loathing. “Be not afraid.” Come at me, brah. Bring the noize. Or:

        Arm! arm! it is — it is — the cannon’s opening roar!

        (“And there was mounting in hot haste…”)

        P.S. “Dalrymple and Hart” sounds like an old song-writing team.
        P.P.S. The Eminem reference was for uh‘s benefit. And only secondarily to emphasize the universality of the message, high and low. Shalom, bruhther.

        Like


      • KA,

        I like you and Hart and Daniels and all the nattily querulous conservative crew, but, alas, there are a few too many crumbs on the satin to make this a real lovefest.

        When I read writing like yours or Hart’s, its rhetoric and cadence cut from vestment cloth, it simply feels too Arnoldian, like an oddly sad rearguard action, its roar more retreat than threat.

        There is none of the assured solidity of someone whose confidence exceeds words. When I read the King James its sonorities never feel brassily vulgar – it never strains to convince. It rests assured.—

        Yet everything I read from people like you and Hart feels like derivative Kierkegaard, spruced up with an earnest mastery of youtube and net patois, but lacking even his desperate verve.

        Merry Christmas nevertheless.

        Like


      • Well, it is written on the net. These are dashed off, first-draft thoughts without an editor. Practice for the real thing. The habit has served me very well at every level of rhetorics.

        Like


  52. on December 21, 2011 at 2:28 pm Holden Caulfield

    “The fatter the general population, the thinner the idealized woman.” Exactly right.

    Original content:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504422.html?hpid=topnews

    Like


  53. **so what does the HBD crowd make of this**
    http://nyc.barstoolsports.com/random-thoughts/introducing-masonobu-the-japanese-world-masturbation-champion/
    on one hand, thug culture is allegedly alpha, then this culture has to be omega.

    Like


  54. “Within my lifetime, I would love to see the self-evident truths encompassed in this post recognized and embraced by the elite. But it’s looking more and more like that is a pipe dream. Instead, traitors and liars will drag us down into the dark, murky abyss before they surrender their pride.”

    If only it were all pride. Amongst the elite, the power brokers, it is pride, sure. But within the general left-whether or not you find them all abhorrent-it is a personal, deep and seemingly moralistic fear. To acknowledge unequal potential, unequal capability and predestination in humans reminds people of the more sanguine chapters in history.

    So how do you assuage those fears on the left: the visceral concerns, not the institutionalized faux-concerns? What are the positives to a more honest though less “compassionate” future in which inequality is acknowledged? Who wins, who loses, what are the benifits for the species?

    Like


  55. Question for Heartiste, this post is thinly veiled attempt by you to bring up something about Asians having high IQ and whites higher than black because of genetics. How come the pure Africans who come straight off the boat are performing better than any race (including Asians), richer, and perform better in school? Maybe Africans do have better (physical and mental) genetics.

    Like


    • How come the pure Africans who come straight off the boat are performing better than any race (including Asians), richer, and perform better in school?

      Where are these Super Africans of whom you yiddle?

      Like


    • on December 21, 2011 at 7:56 pm John Norman Howard

      How come them thar superior “pure Africans” can’t create a viable national standard of living in Africa, then?

      And why are they running to YT land, where dat ole White debbil be lookin’ to oppress ’em and sheet?

      Fail more, troll.

      On a side note: this job of being the rassiss enforcer of the site is growing tedious.

      Like


    • Maybe they’re scared they’ll have to go back if they fail. However, I’d need to see some references on this assertion as it’s inconsistent with my experiences. The other reason is cherry picked elites are the ones coming over. Asians are also cherry picked. Chinese have an average IQ of 105 in the west, but not in China. The same is true of Indians, although the exact figures for IQ are a bit different, I believe,

      Like


    • self-selection. the brighter probably have the foresight and the wherewithal to get the hell out. they are also unlikely to have the social dysfunction that afflicts american blacks as well.

      Like


    • This is a frequently repeated assertion by leftists, but there is no hard evidence to support it, other than a select few spurious “studies” by the NAACP or by leftist Jews. Most claim that a relatively high percentage of African immigrants has a college degree, which considering the quality of education in Africa means almost nothing.
      I was in an American PhD program that had imported two Nigerians, undoubtedly at U.S. taxpayer expense. These African geniuses were incapable of elementary written English. A white American 6th grader would have been more successful than they.

      Like


  56. OMG HAERTSISTE

    You’ll want to have a look at this.

    http://www.pof.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=34256465

    Like


  57. …the relentless pursuit
    of self-analyzing
    the circle is
    complete

    Like


    • We’re just waiting for you to take the first shot, fearless leader. FSU.

      Honestly, though… I can’t think of anyone else who would.

      Like


  58. The purpose of this life is not about the hand you’re dealt, its the way you play the hand. It is the brilliant general who shines in the face of adversity.

    Like


  59. BofA being ordered to pay a $350m settlement for discriminatory lending, guiding hispanic and black buyers into subprime loans. Sounds to me like BofA will be paying that money to hush the gods of HBD. The true story might read closer to this: Blacks and Hispanics took higher interest loans because they are more likely to be financially illiterate, ill-prepared for home ownership, and more concerned with superficial issues like curb appeal than reading their actual loan terms. They accepted whatever terms were put in front of them, in higher numbers than whites. How is this illegal? Doesn’t this happen on every car lot in America?

    Like


  60. Also, the percentage of foreclosures on black homes is more than twice that of whites, showing they are a much higher credit risk across the board. Charging higher interest was smart on the bank’s part.

    At the altar of equality, we are sacrificing everything that made it possible for us to be prosperous.

    Like


  61. The facts of life are going to be driven into the heads of the elite whether they like it or not.

    Left wing / right-wing creationists and equalists are going to see their shpis gound on the shores of genetic science.

    Actually, this has already happened. But like some people on the Titanic, they haven’t heard about it yet.

    Very soon, it will be possible to begin serious genetic engineering of humans. Gene complexes that detail intelligence will be mapped (have already been done or are starting to be); group differences will begin to emerge as absolutely obvious, and they will almost certainly accord with social realities; some will advocate “cures” (essentially, eugenics by another name) – and the loudest among these will be progressives.

    It will all swing back to the “progressive” eugenic movements of the 1920’s: Make the lower classes smarter through selective breeding; instead, it will be make the lower classes smarter through selection of the right genes from any individuals, for overall improvement. We’ll be able to do this because we’ll know what by choosing Egg 1 or Sperm 2796 we’ll get X factor; or we’ll know that X gene complex should be excised and replaced with X1 factor. Technology will be different, but like GM foods, the process will be the same: Selective or modified breeding.

    Watch. In the next 25 years, “liberal” breeding philosophies are going to gemerge. This is the only way the Left will cope with the emerging scientific understanding of what it is to be human.

    Like


    • Very soon, it will be possible to begin serious genetic engineering of humans.

      Wonderful!

      Will we also see:

      – Jews voting Republican
      – Jews opposing race-mixing among non-Jews
      – Gorbachev admitting he is a Jew
      – Portuguese chasing Jews through the streets of Lisbon

      ??

      Like


    • But what will happen to the mob they need to stay in power? Who will pay to genetically engineer a bunch of feral human garbage? I agree the equation will be turned on its head. We will soon be making kids in incubators too. That’s when the real eugenics will start. Good bye sodomites!

      Like


  62. John Norman Howard
    How come them thar superior “pure Africans” can’t create a viable national standard of living in Africa, then?
    ————————————————————————————————–

    Excuse me Mr. Howard, but isn’t that what you produced here?

    If so,

    Why do you hate it and wish to change it?

    Sometimes I wonder if you secretly wish you were a nigger?

    Just sayin.

    Like


    • The (white) boomer generation did experience an inferiority to their predecessors. This may be both genetic and environmental. There is something obviously very wrong with them.

      Like


    • on December 23, 2011 at 12:36 pm John Norman Howard

      A viable standard of living exists in pretty much all White-dominated countries, occasional outbreaks of war and such notwithstanding… and note, IN SPITE OF the unfortunate presence of non-Whites in said societies.

      And no, slave labor did not build this nation… it was a temporary convenience for a few soon-to-be-effete rich Southerners. Horses and mules did more for America than any slaves… and the trade-off for forcibly upgrading the standard of living of your kind… resulting in a few amusing comedians, simian “affletes”, and a handful of jazz musicians… is not worth the urban blight and rampant sociopathy of darkies in general.

      The inanity of your posts has finally gone over the line, boy… avaunt, you impious fool, and address me no more.

      Like


  63. “Great crops of corn, I hate to toot my own horn, but goddamn… strike up the band!”

    A poet, and I didn’t…know it.

    Like


  64. Is not the point of game that anyone can overcome their genes, learn a set of Alpha behaviors, and become successful with girls where they hadn’t been before?

    [heartiste: because i hate repeating myself.]

    If bio-mechanics were god, we’d all be bound to our own genetic caste of Alpha, Beta or Omega. Yet clearly, we’re not.

    [genetic predilection is not predetermination.]

    Unless you want to argue that the ability to learn game is also genetic, and only a certain class of latent-Alphas can pick up game…

    [some men will pick it up easier than others. life isn’t fair.]

    Like


    • Genes give a wide variety of possible phenotypes based on nutrition & activity levels. Alpha is a mindset.

      Check out these two identical twin brothers. One became a distance runner, the other a shot-putter:

      Like


  65. John Norman Howard

    and the trade-off for forcibly upgrading the standard of living of your kind… resulting in a few amusing comedians, simian “affletes”, and a handful of jazz musicians… is not worth the urban blight and rampant sociopathy of darkies in general.
    =———————————————————————————————-

    Don’t forget your current president of the United States!

    Did you freak out the nite he was elected?

    Like


    • on December 28, 2011 at 12:25 am John Norman Howard

      I haven’t voted my entire life… I don’t support corrupt systems with no hope of anything beyond further decay… as witnessed by the current high yella occupying the office.

      Did your simian visage ook and eek with glee the night he and that Aunt Estheresque primate secured the nomination?

      Like


  66. nah, I freaked out when he screwed over the GM bond-holders and ignored US bankruptcy law, when he sent union thugs to the houses of CEO’s that wouldn’t play ball, when he funneled guns to Mexican drug gangs, since he hasn’t signed a budget in 2 years and is still spending bailout levels of money with nearly $2trillion a year in deficits, rammed through Obamacare without reading or knowing what’s in it, when he stopped verifying campaign contributions, when he sued state to stop them from kicking out illegal aliens, when he bowed to foreign heads of state, when he let his DOJ eliminate voter ID requirements to foster voter fraud, when the DOJ stopped prosecuting the black panthers, when it turns out that he’ll give half a billion to any campaign contributor’s alleged green job business, etc.

    Like


  67. All of this discussion attempts to comment on the normative, the ought of human existence.
    What is plain is that human existence is merely an extension of the mechanics of this universe.
    Human behaviour is the same as that of the amoeba, only the underlying structures of causality are that much more complex.
    That means necessarily that attempting to categorize human existence into properly defined unitary selves has to be in vain.
    As we learn more about the realities of human existence, it becomes more and more apparent that personhood and selfhood must necessarily erode. Consciousness is but a momentary light shone on a complex mechanistic process.
    We are nothing but processes and products of processes.
    Any attempts by any of you above to make qualitative judgments about the value or merit of any these processes is by definition non-sensical.
    There simply is.
    Human desires are but the products of mechanistic process that have no describable quality.
    So ethics or normative discourse (as appears above) is nothing but an attempt to describe the undescribable.
    Language is so contingent that most sentences can be deconstructed into absurdity.
    So there really is no point to talking about it all. Just surface dwell and distract. Being with women has to be the greatest distraction of all. Remain focused on such pursuits and not worry about the bigger picture which is really just quagmire.

    http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/The_Last_Messiah

    Like


  68. Webmaster, I am the admin at SEOPlugins.org. We profile SEO Plugins for WordPress blogs for on-site and off-site SEO. I’d like to invite you to check out our recent profile for a pretty amazing plugin which can double or triple traffic for a Worpdress blog. You can delete this comment, I didn’t want to comment on your blog, just wanted to drop you a personal message. Thanks, Rich

    Like