Posts Tagged ‘biological determinism’

Biological differences between conservatives and liberals

Wednesday, June 24th, 2015


For many years, liberals have enjoyed the benefit of considering politics as a preference, meaning that political choices do not require a logical basis such as what is good for the nation, and reflect the whim and will of the individual alone. If you — for example — find liberalism to be aesthetically more inspiring, why not vote for that? Nothing wrong with it.

As always, time uncovers the hidden lie, and now science slowly reveals the gap between liberals and conservatives as having more of a biological (and thus aptitudinal, although they will fight that notion tooth and nail as they did with race, class and sex) foundation than previously thought. A recent study found that conservatives have a longer attention span and can postpone gratification for longer than liberals:

In a paper published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers say there is a link between political ideology and the ability to exert self-control.

In a series of three studies with more than 300 participants, the authors found that people who identify as conservative perform better on tests of self-control than those who identify as liberal regardless of race, socioeconomic status and gender.

Self-control includes the ability to defer gratification, which means that when the person looks forward to something pleasurable, they are able to put off acting toward that end in order to achieve a greater benefit. The classic example of this is the famous marshmallow test:

Mischel and his colleagues presented a preschooler with a plate of treats such as marshmallows. The child was then told that the researcher had to leave the room for a few minutes, but not before giving the child a simple choice: If the child waited until the researcher returned, she could have two marshmallows. If the child simply couldn’t wait, she could ring a bell and the researcher would come back immediately, but she would only be allowed one marshmallow.

In children, as well as adults, willpower can be thought of as a basic ability to delay gratification. Preschoolers with good self-control sacrifice the immediate pleasure of a chewy marshmallow in order to indulge in two marshmallows
at some later point. Ex-smokers forfeit the enjoyment of a cigarette in order to experience good health and avoid an increased risk of lung cancer in the future. Shoppers resist splurging at the mall so they can save for a comfortable retirement. And so on.

This ability toward self-control increases with intelligence, as we can see when looking at those who commit violent crimes, which are the antithesis of deferred gratification — just go in and take what you want. Researchers found that a genetic basis for low IQ superseded all other factors:

Cognitive ability in early adulthood was inversely associated to having been convicted of a violent crime (β = −0.19, 95% CI: −0.19; −0.18), the association remained when adjusting for childhood socioeconomic factors (β = −0.18, 95% CI: −0.18; −0.17). The association was somewhat lower within half-brothers raised apart (β = −0.16, 95% CI: −0.18; −0.14), within half-brothers raised together (β = −0.13, 95% CI: (−0.15; −0.11), and lower still in full-brother pairs (β = −0.10, 95% CI: −0.11; −0.09). The attenuation among half-brothers raised together and full brothers was too strong to be attributed solely to attenuation from measurement error.

Even more exciting is that research has decoupled socioeconomic status from criminality. In other words, poverty is not the cause of crime — criminal tendencies are. Researchers using the same Swedish data set discovered that innate tendencies do not vary when income changes:

He found, to no one’s surprise, that teenagers who had grown up in families whose earnings were among the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to be convicted of violent crimes, and twice as likely to be convicted of drug offences, as those whose family incomes were in the top fifth.

What did surprise him was that when he looked at families which had started poor and got richer, the younger children—those born into relative affluence—were just as likely to misbehave when they were teenagers as their elder siblings had been. Family income was not, per se, the determining factor.

In other words, not just our political leanings but our behavioral leanings are hard-wired by heritage, much as our ancestors believed. People are either born good or born bad, and social caste exists based on ability instead of affluence. Traditionalists and conservatives have always held and espoused these beliefs but for some time, liberal strongholds in the social sciences were able to baffle, confuse, distract, obfuscate and deflect from the issue. This suggests in turn that there is a biological difference in ability between conservatives and liberals: conservatives may take longer to develop as youngsters, but have more self-control and keep developing throughout adulthood, reaching greater heights of ability than liberals, who peak early and achieve a lower height. Those who have read The Bell Curve may see how conservatives are those on the right side of the center line of the curve, and liberals are those on the left but close to the center. That means they are more intelligent than the average person, but not as intelligent as they would need to be to make the decisions they purport to be making, unlike the ultimate conservative force in our society — military leaders and aristocrats — who tended to be more intelligent and capable of making these decisions.

Frailty, what is thy name?

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

In a dream, it was this morning revealed to me at long last what women are really like. So as soon as I rinsed me from my slumber, I decided to come to this website to write down the most valuable findings of my revelation.

I dreamed that I was visiting some young, soft and appealing woman. We sat down at her kitchen and she poured us some lemonade. I was apparently very familiar with her. As she held her cup to her chest I was informed by her that she wasn’t at a suitable moment in her life to be in a serious relationship. Because she said she wasn’t ready to deal with all the complications that would bring.

She did stress, however, that she was open to a casual romance, or non-committing encounters with handsome young men. When I took hold of her body to caress and cuddle her, she at first seemed to enjoy it. Considering both of our ages – the age to fall in love, to lie in the grass and hug as the midsummer sun sets behind blossoming trees, it felt only as the most suiting and natural thing to do, although outside of my dream I would normally be much more reserved in making such a move.

As I embraced this young woman the warmth of her tender flesh radiated pleasingly through the fabric of our clothes. Then she suddenly changed her mind and said she wasn’t ready for it. At that instant it hit me.

“You women want everything!” I yelled. “You want AND the freedom AND the romance AND the sex. You want deep erotic passion and emotional endearment, and at the same time you want no strings attached. You want to feel loved and understood, but you also want to go shopping when it enters your mind, call your friends at will to have long chit-chat conversations and go clubbing, or sleep until noon when it pleases you. And a man in a life would put restrictions on all of that. You want both the naughty boy AND the cultivated intellectual who offers a listening ear as well as a refined sense of culture and quality wine. And that combined with the untamed caveman-bodybuilder brute hankering for female flesh. You want AND to abandon yourself to reckless sweeping love AND to keep your distance. You want AND the knight in shining armor on his white horse AND the caring, understanding best friend. You want AND to be made to submit to his ardent amorous conquest AND you want to keep things in your control to do them at your own pace. You women want it all at the same time and yet nothing at all!” At that moment, when I had peered through the female facade and sharply revealed the secret, the girl stood bewildered and started to fade. I woke up.

Perhaps this problem of the woman has always been there, and is it not just a result of today’s age, where everything, including relationships, is seen as a product that needs to be satisfying yet fleeting. At the age the woman is most sexually attractive, that is from her puberty to her adolescence, she also tends to randomly enter into destructive emotional outbursts, to attract people only to then violently push them away, and to display conceited and self-overestimating behavior.

In primitive societies however, where everyone needed to cooperate if the harvests were to be readied in time, this behavior was quickly smothered; the adolescent girl had to work to earn her keep so her elders were quick to direct her towards the milking cow. And if she persisted in her unreliable moods they had her locked up in her room.

A man is different in this than a woman: he will settle for a reliable partner with a fresh face or that he can otherwise have a laugh with. He has tangible, definite goals that he solidifies by working towards them step by step. The woman counts on the man to do this for her – a part of her counts on him to give direction to her life. She will unconsciously resent him if he doesn’t, but she will also resent him if he doesn’t respect her capricious choices as autonomous wishes.

Therefore he will never do it right, and always suffer the fallout. She wants to able to count on their man to sustain her and provide for her wishes, yet she wants to be independent and self-supplying. In this sense, her psychological instability and the corresponding moodswings can be accounted for by the fact that the urges of our primal tribal genes conflict with the needs of an emancipated society. In hunter gatherer societies, an age where the human being as a species spent 99,9% of his time developing as opposed to the industrial society where he spent only 00,1% of his existence, women often relied on men to find food for them as hunters. Especially in the ice-age, where the perpetual frost made fruits hard to come by.

Human beings share genes with primates, and in societies of primates the females always seek to hook up with the men at the top of the ladder; the female uses her sexuality to rise along with her man on the social ladder and lets him ‘do the work’, so to say. If her mate is overthrown by a newcomer she will also try to replace him. In comparison to human societies we see that a woman pushes her demands until the extreme and insists that it must all be perfect – “everything must feel right”. With other words, she is unable to form a realistic self-image and tends to overrate her value on what Brett Stevens calls ‘the sexual market’.

Our ancestors in their tribal and agricultural traditions understood this, and they knew that it would lead to sexual frustration and social instability. Therefore they always made it pretty clear whom was to marry with whom and when. Difference of religion and class as well as distance played a role in narrowing down the amount of possible partners. But today egalitarianism has dismantled these differences and with the increased mobility brought by the car and the internet the distance became also less of a restraining factor. This further accelerated the expectations and dreams of women which have now become extreme demands. Whereas women who have no standards at all frequently engage in casual sex while forgetting anticonception, and in this way out-procreate the rest.

Today however, in a society where the means to satisfy individual wishes are so readily available, temporary as these wishes may be, the flimsiness of the female psyche is no longer held in check. The broad emphasis on individual sovereignty has removed all boundaries that the juvenile girl needs to develop into a dutiful woman. In this way, contemporary society has unleashed the unrestrained whimsicalness of the woman upon the world. And because a pretty and youthful female body will hardly encounter a man not ready and eager to do her bidding and win her sympathy, her tenuous wishes are accelerated and magnified, not reduced to sensible proportions. God help us all.

(Oh, and ladies, by the way, this all comes from a guy who passed with ++ scores on the university courses genderstudies and emancipation-history.)

Will to Power as cooperation

Tuesday, May 17th, 2011

Life is mostly about solving problems using common sense; things don’t need to be very complicated as long they work.

Most conservatives tend to simply “trust their guts” when evaluating problems; consequently, they focus on this freedom to choose, and they individually assume the consequences — to the conservative mind, each to his place.

It is common sense to understand things for their visible and regular outcomes. It is not that common sense is always right, or that all things are as they appear, but on the other hand, common sense can tell us things that are evident because they are simply true.

This is probably why you’re more likely to find conservatives in business than in academics. In academics people “problematize” ad infinitum, very often reaching conclusions that end wandering in their own realm of political correctness without going back to reality, while in business, things are evaluated by their patent productivity. If conservatives are criticized for not “questioning the system”, liberals can be criticized for doing nothing but questioning the system, getting closed in a prescriptive cage made of good intentions.

Perhaps the most important part of this common sense about the world is the understanding of will as a fundamental element of success. A successful society is that which gathers disciplined individuals who have clear ideals in mind, and that are responsible of their actions.

On the other hand liberals tend to think that this will is just a product of structure and that the individuals are not ultimately responsible of their actions, their lack of discipline or will. The will to power, in their minds, is just a pretext to some sort of institutional savagism, as in Fascist regimes where strength and the strong are socially fixated in their positions above the weak.

I’ll follow the leftist train of thought for a while to rebuild their vision, and start by thinking of a world completely dominated by the will to power. A jungle-like scenario, where the strongest rule as long as he can watch his own back, the survival of the fittest as an endless race that gets nowhere but only to selfish and temporary triumph, a scenario whose inhabitants live in permanent restlessness.

Robbery, abuse, death. A terrible picture. That’s the pure will that we commonly praise so much in our “common sense”, without thinking in the importance of the structural socialization around it to make it bearable, or human. Essentially, it is natural selection, and we haven’t imposed our values on it, the will to be selected trumps ethical considerations and results in an everlasting battle.

But if we favor socialization over the will to power, what would we have?

True, it’s called civilization, and in its more advanced form, democracy. But in order to be in such state of harmony, this will to power must be suppressed for the sake of cooperation, tranquility, and equality.  And we will need to evaluate our social constructs over that, otherwise, cruel isolated will. Let’s be leftists to foster socialization over nature. Although we had not so fortunate moments like monarchy and aristocracy, with their legitimately veiled but rampant dominions based on these will as an exclusive attribute, we have progressed.

Aristocratic will ends in tyranny. It is known that power corrupts, and therefore, in order to avoid that corruption, power must be partitioned as much as possible; this ends, ideally, with every individual having the same amount of power as the next. Hence, power in the hands of the best means the exploitation of those ‘who are not the best’.

Much of our modern culture is a way to prevent aristocratism, whether through art, media or law, our culture just seeks to avoid the exploitation of the ‘not best’ through the complete denial of differences among humans. If not will, what we praise then? Meekness.

Meekness is cooperative, don’t you think?  The simple notion of will is domineering, are you going to exert your will against the wind? No, it’s towards other man. Everybody, in common sense, knows that, but we politically correct types praise not will but submission, because as more people submit, the more cooperative our society is: where no one has private property, everyone has private property, where no one has power, everyone has power.

However, this collective submission doesn’t include the leaders of these revolutions, we have to submit ourselves to their peace, but that’s only a gradual step towards the emancipation of the masses. When we look at our current times, in clear distinction to old ages of cruelty, we feel happy of living in safer ages, and we must move forward!

We are afraid of the dominant, willful, and strong, because they are discriminatory towards the meek. It’s simple: we arrange our goals as society and we punish or ostracize those who don’t follow them, either they’re aristocratic values or humanist pursuits, and so we come with very interesting conflicts.

In an aristocratic order, sure, the meek are relegated by the so called “patriarchal” values, but in the individualist society, everything that smells like aristocracy or hierarchy, is despised and sealed with politically correct accusations. There’s nothing impressive here.

Individualism is the optimal form of cooperation, because aristocratic values of strength and honor, are so inherently conflictive, discriminatory, selfish and bellicose, how could a bunch of willful beasts manage to have harmony? We have changed and we have now civilized individuals that are cooperative.

So — that is enough leftist train for me. We know that this modern project failed. Why?

Because it went too far on its appraisal of socialization, and, denied the will to power, confusing it with a naively cruel via of exploitation. Nietzsche, would you explain how, really, aristocratic will works in society?

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is–namely,a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay.

CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS NOBLE? – Beyond Good and Evil. 259

Nietzsche was right when he emphasized cooperation not only in terms of kinship, but in terms of “force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization”. But also, he brilliantly recognized that a society that forces to create this co-relation is destined to fail.

Cooperation is possible if there are individuals of similar worth and purpose. A society with an average of worthy individuals it’s going to minimize its class conflict, and therefore the tyranny that emerges from the existing distance between the peasants and the rulers. But, the reader could ask: isn’t that the same purpose of the Left, to produce people of good attitude? And that’s precisely the spin: it is the purpose, not the consequence.

It is the disgrace of making it the fundamental principle of society, according to Nietzsche. It is a diabolic inversion, whereas social harmony may naturally come from naturally worthy individuals, liberalism tries to produce social harmony to bring worthy individuals.

What do we really need to look for? To equate worth, but from bottom-up: no assistance, no charity, but look for the foundations of a good collective society: worthy individuals that incarnate the will to power as a via to communal transcendence.

The will to power is natural, and so, here we know that the will to power depends on the nature of the individual. The lesson is very simple, if we want to level up society, we need to work with human nature to bring worthy individuals that include creative cooperation as part of themselves.

An Ecology of Star Systems

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

The need for space, a buffer and medium between things is a truly universal phenomenon. In this article the cosmos is illustrated in parallel toward groups of individuals who are closely related genetically.

There are many names to describe this organic grouping of individuals. The most controversial is race, and I can show that this shares the same dimensions as the macrocosm of space. In this article, race is here understood to be a microcosm of a higher pattern in nature and yet a macrocosm of individuals. Whether you associate with your peers via race, ethnicity, tribe, buddies whatever. Try and understand this.

So our planet, beautiful as it is, is only this way because it keeps to itself – it has a gravity yet it has its limits, everything has a gravity and things gravitate toward it if they share a close proximity — but what if it somehow defied the natural gravity, creating a super gravity on steroids that simply allowed all matter to come ‘in’ as it pleased?

One thing would fall almost immediately, and that is the life that resides on its surface — asteroids then begin to bizarrely sinkhole into the Earth, impacting and devastating the terrestrial life, reducing the biomass into nothing and then melting the crust into molten rock — if that was bad enough, further still the planetary collisions would rip the Earth into tiny pieces killing all multicellular organisms for good, billions of years of struggle — for what?

Soon enough in our fictional example, Jupiter would invite itself and engulf the Earth and swallow it whole, then Jupiter sucks in Saturn and every other mass in the solar system thanks to this warped, unnatural and disharmonic gravity. The Sun then is absorbed, then the stellar neighbourhood, then the galaxy — you get the picture.

This of course could never happen in reality? We have a brilliant non-existent thing called space, just like our evil discriminatory non-existent thing called race. It’s made of a little mass, and a lot of distance (be it light-years, or in our individual lives, how distant our genes are). This open space allows us to exist isolated so that our planet may be independent and raise its life free from the devastating, bone cracking gravity of the giants.

Space allows us to exist isolated away from things which ultimately destroy the life on our Earth, we don’t have to worry about blackholes swallowing up our planet, nor intense gamma rays sterilising and peeling off our atmosphere, vaporising our flesh from supernova. We are distant and cold to these extremes.

In space, Earth is a microcosm of the cosmos at large, everything it is made of is thanks to the ancestral stars whose death composed the very rock beneath our feet. If it wasn’t for our ancestors, both stars and people, we wouldn’t be where we stand today — because the conditions for our existence would not be here.

Our planet is one of many in our star system, yet many other star systems each have their own planets — there are billions, each supports its own conditions, some more favourable to life than others. It allows there to be billions, therefore more chances of success.

Through this great expanse of space, many planets, many worlds, may co-exist with their own shining light. Yet it is our very own star, our Sun that provides our world with the light it needs to survive.

Our Sun is warm, the other Sun’s are cold. Meditate on this contrast of dimensions, see the parallel, the cosmic pattern that is living throughout ecology.

Each point is a microcosm, each part of a much larger ecology in the galaxy. Each race, ethnicity is a microcosm, each part of a much larger human ecology, these part of a much larger terrestrial ecology of species on our Earth.

We should know better than to deny the prior conditions toward our existence, and know what we are doing with them, to find a common centre between the global and the local, to revolve around and receive the warmth. A stable homeland able to appreciate the magnificence of our neighbours — in their own space, from our own space.

The Caste System

Monday, May 17th, 2010

A key feature of any future successful government would be the replacement of the class system with a hereditary caste system.

A class system is a social hierarchy that groups individuals ascending by order of a social valuation and is only as effective as a civilization is at observing reality, as it is.

A caste system is a natural hierarchy that groups individuals ascending by order of natural, inherited ability and is the basis for creating and sustaining civilizations.

Class systems are therefore, socially geared toward a culture as the west has, where we determine the worth of individuals by their pay check rather than the nature of individuals, and of course it isn’t ‘racist’ either. Caste systems are geared toward natural ability and meritocracy, the best in ability will naturally rise, and the more stoney brains will sink the the base of the hierarchy.

On this blog we talk alot about how social reality pervades everything we do, it’s a part of being alive having to face the twisting and theorizing of relatively simple ideas that spin off into imaginary worlds whereby they cease to function effectively in the reality around us.

The social information we absorb everywhere and everyday will cause us to associate with certain socializations, creating an ‘us vs them’ mentality, an in group mentality toward everything we do, and so it is really difficult, so difficult that only a gifted few can rarely glimpse the cold, brutal truth out there. Tabula rasa, is something every generation should have a taste of.

The most refreshing truths are necessarily destructive and come to us through history, they flush the toilet that is our society with repeated verification and practical methods proved by people who have actually experienced the things we do in everyday society. Knowing that nature follows patterns we can make very accurate estimates toward certain actions, which is predominantly due to the subconscious, naturally following socialized preferences – something that must be overcome time and time again.

It’s time to throw out the class system

The class system has failed. At the beginning of the western regime that sprung out of europe before the colonization of north america. The aristocracy acting through the class system relied heavily on hereditary principles, it worked well for some time as all traditions succeed in doing. Slowly but surely, the decay has set in and the subconscious peasants began on their death march murmuring  memes fed to them by parasites, the murmured memes promised them that they could have everything without the need to actually achieve something.

So the peasants marched under their memes and the ruling classes became more vicious in response to the rising tide of despotic labourers; and because labourers tend to be less intelligent, turnip pickers, then they will easily be fooled by anything with an above majority intelligence. Corporatism and consumerism rooted and started out modestly before the 1950’s, then turned whorish after the second world war as undefined-freedom was such a dream to die for, followed by the complete contrary, a cultural marxism – the flourishing of political correctness in the late 1970’s demanding a complete intertia on evolution by insisting that all competing organisms in civilization be equalized, therefore it is easier for them to begin devolving and do-away with that evil, oppressive force called nature. It inverted the natural residue of the class hierarchy into putting the least competent above the most competent.

This is where the social ideologies began to twist in on themselves and trapped minds of the subconscious masses causing them to revolve around it, it’s how they generate a mob, incessantly needing a revolution for whatever reason – they are the reactionaries to the viciousness of corrupted corporatism and polluted by inorganic surrogation.

We can’t just say cultural communism is bad without also addressing the opposite side of this, those who have managed to inherit wealth without the need to actually earn it, therefore unable to learn the consequences of their actions. Splitting the divide even further until a civilization completely tears itself into two leading to civil wars and ‘class’ wars, or in Britain’s case, a very very serious TV mass-debate about fairness.

Establishing the Caste Hierarchy

In the reorganization of our failing society we need to scrap this social class hierarchy and implement an idea inspired by only the best of ancient societies, many of them Indo-European and the more well known hindu caste systems – except we can do this with our own flavours as such.

To read about the Indo-European caste system, click here

To read about the Hindu caste system, click here

What I find so interesting is the idea of the ‘four levels of humans’. Let’s keep it simple and elaborate:

Here we have two sides of the scale, the productive (above 51% productive) and the counterproductive (below 50% productive). This caste does not include social factors such as ethnicity, and it simple and goes well with meritocracy, those who contribute the most to keeping civilization ruled by the best reach the top, those who want it all for nothing sink to the bottom.

Those above the 50% threshold allow civilization to evolve, those below it are necessarily slaves, they have a slave mentality and are the meat shield of social organisms when they fight. The proles are counterproductive decision makers, they will always include every human and not in the intelligent way of actually organising, but equalising. They will provide for ghouls – because they are ‘humans’ too! Therefore, even though they are abusing everyone else for their own game, the proles acting as a collective hive-mind will not speak out against them, because ‘they’re poor, it was their upbringing, it’s not their fault’ – yeah right, bullshit.

Proles should be mindless labourers and stick with that, ancient societies would trim them from time to time or just feed them to the lions. Their opinions are not their own, they are dumb and cannot make decisions, they are your everyday average joe and jill that tolerates stupidity. Anyone who speaks anything against their ‘individual’ decisions collectively implanted into their vacant heads, they auto-respond with ‘racist’ – they are mediocre.

Ghouls are the worst, they are subhumans – they are the result of failing societies that breed up a whole undercaste of parasites that catacomb the civilization into a third world slum run by selfish desires with no rationality behind them, they are the insects, outcastes. You can spot these mutants running around alleyways, looking at your children in the playground, spilling oil in the sea, in your law courts – they are the very meaning of parasites in our civilization.

Artisans are your ‘middle class’, they are what keeps civilization going forward and they operate more specified labour that is below the level of leadership yet above the mindlessness of proletariat ‘work’. They generate wealth and every sensible government would do everything they can to ensure they have what they need to help civilization by helping themselves, they don’t need nannying.

Elites in this sense are true elites, they are all round intellects, cyclic thinkers who think holistically and can adapt to different tasks as they happen. They are the leaders who drive civilization forward, and the sooner they take back their divine right of intelligence for leading our nations, the sooner we can dispose of mental pollution.

On determining a caste type

This bit is really simple, if you have a population:

  •  Introduce a communal culture – those who destroy it are ghouls, get rid of them. Those who go along with it regardless of how you treat them, are proles (will wave pieces of card angrily when offended), those who get bored with plain old labour are the artisans, they create the culture and something meaningful to make use of manpower, and the ones who are telling people to operate within limits and respect the surrounding entities, steering the ship, they are the elites and they make sure the whole actually has a true direction.
  • Establish a meritocracy – reward good behaviour, punish the bad. Allow land and resources for the productive to produce wealth for your civilization, take away land and wealth from the counterproductive people who only want to leech the wealth off others to spend it on unnecessary public utilities, like ‘bread and cricuses’ and mass education that fails.
  • Control population quality – do not let the least productive reproduce the most or else you will be surrounded in parasites, any problems will be ignored and you will end up with a liberal democracy that conceals the most ugly and oppressive regime in history. The elites and artisans must reproduce more than the proles and the ghouls, either by sterilizing the least productive and giving the most productive the resources to raise successful families.
  • One caste system per ethnic group – if you include multiple ethnic groups in one caste hierarchy, they will be proportionaly inequal correlating to the common hereditary characteristics. Most africans in western countries do not work well with westernised ideals, they have adapted to their own ancestry and evolved by their own cultural customs – mixing them together is counterproductive and creates a parasite undercaste without initiative.
  • Remove useless laws – in order for a hierarchy to work the best, it must operate in the most natural environment, the most realistic environment possible for it to organise individuals according to ability. Removing bubble padded laws design to protect the incompetent from themselves will soak up the residue of undercastes from the failures of the past, as dumb people do dumb things, let them do so in tipple zones where they can kill themselves legally.

So there we have just a few pointers, there is really nothing to it. Nature is always before nurture, for nurture is a secondary force that shapes nature by restricting certain mutations from reproducing and giving to those desired by the ideals. Only a great culture, shaped by caste hereditary is capable of fixing our civilization.

On interface layers and our perfect inequality

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

A couple months ago, on one of our affiliated discussion domains, an interesting dialogue took place. The discussion topic was inspired by an essay by Vijay Prozak at the domain titled Oncology. I’ll repost my “Plato” part from the topical disussion as follows:

Months ago, there was a blog published at the Archdruid Report (The Twilight of Money), as is often the case, about the economy and modern way of life. This blog dealt with the concept of abstractions.

I don’t know if it is The Problem, but certainly a problem with modernism is our use of abstractions. I believe understanding our use of abstractions is another helpful path, along with enumerating modernism’s components.

Take the story of the Ten Commandments. Tribal leader Moses travels alone up the mountain to go meet with the Almighty as instructed. With the leader absent, the tribe breaks down into anarchy and debauchery, a sort of default state sliding into entropy and self-destruction; not-being to the Neoplatonic; evil to the Christian; living hell to the Hindu, etc.

monkey_moralityMoses returns later with the two tablets and some drama follows. The point here is the tablets themselves. They are an abstract layer of more accessible, better simplified instructions for how not to self-destruct as a group, which we may as well take to mean comprehending reality. Again, with tribal leader Moses away, the tribe had gone astray into their own fantasies, losing touch with reality.

Another way to look at this is binary electrical signals in personal computing as a true reality, with the colorful buttons and legible text on our visible light emitting monitors as our accessible, convenient abstract layer for interfacing with personal computing’s true reality, which are those minute binary signals transceiving information.

Our bodies are far too big and slow to pull electrons one at a time manually and arrange in required order. It is a natural, physical limitation we are stuck with but have nonetheless managed to overcome with our clever use of interface layers.

Similarly, by default, we very rarely if ever produce people of such leadership quality that they are consistently cognizant of reality-as-it-exists. Even if we did, how could one such rare person, other than an acknowledged, unquestioned god-king command such obedience that everyone is kept in line and away from drifting off into that default animal not-being state of ours? Hence, our moral layer applications, if only for efficiency.

But this morality interface is itself corrupted in our time, isn’t it?

Continuing with the Ten Commandments for our example, we have additional layers atop this original set. There are constitutions, at least in our part of the world, and atop these are laws. Each of these layers had better interface perfectly with the one above it all the way to God, else error is introduced.

Yet, adding layers has not kept the prisons from overflowing from all the instances of criminality and stupidity taking place in our time.

I’ll grant that a man is part of and not the whole of reality, so a standard for what is moral, if moral is taken to mean, “actions and beliefs that consistently function correctly”, essentially lie outside a given man’s being and his time.

What works in reality was there before him, and after him, and remains so with or without his presence. What works in our interactions as physics and these interactions as emergent effects over time is therefore a universal.

The problem with a man is his own ability to interface with reality; how accurately and consistently, as frequency and volume, he does so in life. It goes without saying that some people are more perceptive and some less so. Others value trustworthiness and altruism, but many care for neither.

These characteristics and others are gradients, not binary categories. In addition, they may change over time from a multitude of factors: genes, nutrition, rest, injury, pity or jadedness that comes from experiences in a given context. The gradients dynamically shift in tone as it were from instance to instance for each man.

Referring again to the Moral Existence clause, “frequency of actions and beliefs that consistently function correctly”, this is effectively perfect inequality between men.

Our dialogue concluded with an outstanding summary by the “Glaucon” party:

  1. Reality is perfectly good.
  2. One human being can not be as good as Reality, at least as long as he remains a human being.
  3. Man can learn about Reality, and by his will can improve: but not every human being can do this equally, because they differ in knowledge and will (and many other things). Therefore, we have inequality among human beings; some will necessarily be more virtous than others. And even one human being can change in time: virtue may improve or deteriorate.
  4. From this follows that there is perfect inequality between human beings.

Culture is produced by biology

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

People often speak of culture in the plural (“cultures”) because they believe that there are many different cultures in the world. At one level, this is of course true; the American culture is different from the Chinese culture, both of which are different from the Egyptian culture, and so on. However, all the cultural differences are on the surface; deep down, at the most fundamental level, all human cultures are essentially the same.

But the grave error of traditional sociologists and others under the influence of the Standard Social Science Model (a term attributable to the co-founders of evolutionary psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby) is to believe that human behavior is infinitely malleable, capable of being molded and shaped limitlessly in any way by cultural practices and socialization. Available evidence shows that this view is false. Human behavior, while malleable, is not infinitely malleable by culture, because culture is not infinitely variable. In fact, despite all the surface and minor differences, evolutionary psychologists have shown that all human cultures are essentially the same.

Psychology Today

An oldie but a goodie, this article reminds us of a fact: human behavior is a response to the human environment. Sensible behaviors survive; insane or delusional ones do not. Similarly, cultures are collected knowledge for intergenerational transmission that reflect the sensible behaviors that have survived. In other words, culture arises from adaptation, is encoded into biology, and that knowledge is kept together by culture.

In 1923, Margaret Mead (1901-1978), one of the most celebrated anthropologists of all time, was an anthropology graduate student of Franz Boas (1858-1942) at Columbia University. Boas was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, and was therefore politically and personally motivated to prove wrong the Nazi policy of eugenics. While this is an admirable goal in and of itself, Boas unfortunately chose the wrong tactics to achieve it. He wanted to show that biology had nothing to do with how humans behave, and that environment — culture and socialization — determines human behavior completely. He was a strong proponent of cultural determinism.

Mead knew that in the United States and the rest of the Western world, boys were sexually aggressive and actively pursued girls, while girls were sexually coy and waited to be asked out on dates by boys. “How different are things in Samoa? How are Samoan boys and girls when it comes to sex?” Mead asked her two young female informants, Fa’apua’a Fa’amu and Fofoa Poumele.

Fa’apua’a and Fofoa, just like young women everywhere, were quite embarrassed to talk about sex to a total stranger. So they decided to make a big joke about it out of sheer embarrassment. They told Mead the opposite of how things were in Samoa. They told her that boys were quite shy, and girls actively pursued boys sexually. It was a hoax, but in the minds of Fa’apua’a and Fofoa, the story that they were telling Mead was so outrageous and so obviously untrue that they couldn’t believe that anyone in her right mind would believe them.

Except that Mead did, for this was exactly the type of “evidence” that Boas had sent her to Samoa to gather.

Psychology Today

Cultural determinism presumes a more flattering but unfounded principle: that we choose our culture semi-arbitrarily.

It’s a variation of pandering to the Crowd. Tell them their God-like brains, and thus their egos, make decisions and that it has nothing to do with their animal-like bodies, and they like you. Why? Because you told them they are in control.

In reality, free will is an illusion and we are our biology. First, we do what we are capable of understanding. Second, we have inherent tendencies sculpted over time by natural selection and passed on as culture that emerge in our personalities. Finally, we are regulated by our hormone levels, which are biological. We are biology.

Psychologists have conducted a study of more than 100 people and claim to have identified an optimism gene.

“We’ve shown for the first time that a genetic variation is linked with a tendency to look on the bright side of life,” says Elaine Fox of the University of Essex. “This is a key mechanism underlying resilience to general life stress.”

The fates of our unfortunate Crusoes are determined not, then, by their characters but by the genetic determinants on their characters.

I choose to believe the result, though, because it confirms what I suspected: we are the victims of our own brains. Actually, I should recast that sentence. Rather than choosing to believe this study because it confirms what I already suspected, I was genetically doomed to believe it because it confirms what I am genetically doomed to believe about the setup of the universe.

I once imagined that optimism was a matter of willpower.

The Guardian

It’s only human pretense that makes us think character and willpower are separate from genetics. Our genes determine our abilities. We can choose to accelerate those abilities, like a person with musical talent practicing and so becoming a virtuoso, but we cannot create them out of thin air.

In the same way, civilizations are created by the branching of genes. Collaborating in the cold requires an awareness of morality; of 100 communities, one developed the requisite genes and survived, dominating the others. Surviving in cities requires a defensive awareness of self; those who have it thrive. And so on.

That offends our conception of ourselves as “in control” but as any scientist will tell you, we’re in control of very little. We’re nerve impulses as conditioned by evolution.

The argument that fairy tales and the media link physical beauty to positive attributes does not explain why children as young as 14 hours old gaze at adults judged to have attractive female faces longer than those who have unattractive faces.

To label a mental or perceptual mechanism as shaped by selection process, it is imperative to show that the mechanism is operative across diverse ethnic and cultural groups of humans. The effect of WHR (waist-to-hip ratio, which defines the female form) on female attractiveness has now been reported for almost 20 ethnic and culture groups: USA (White, Black, and Latino), England, Germany, Holland, Poland, Greece, Australia, Kenya (Africa), Guinea-Bissau (Africa), Uganda (Africa), Azore Island, Shiwiar tribe of East Ecuador, Indonesia, Hong Kong (China), India (Sugali and Yanadi tribes), Chile (South America), and Jamaica. Some researchers have suggested that the reported influence of WHR on female attractiveness cross-culturally is due to exposure to Western media. In other words, people in non-Western societies copy Western ideals when defining their own ideals of feminine beauty. The speculation that people in non-Western societies imitate Western ideals of beauty does not explain why a relationship between WHR and attractiveness exists in Western societies and why Asian and African societies, which reportedly associate fatness with attractiveness, nevertheless attend to and are influenced by WHR.

As evident in Figure 4, all groups have practically identical ratings for all attributes in spite of extremely diverse cultural backgrounds; men from Guinea-Bissau (one of the poorest countries, with practically no exposure to Western media), Azore Island (which has government-controlled, commercial-free television), Indonesia, and U.S. (African-American and Caucasian) rate figures as less attractive, less healthy, older, and less desirable for marriage as WHR increases (Singh, 2004; Singh & Luis, 1995). Furthermore, attractiveness, healthiness, and youthfulness covary in identical manners as a function of WHR for all groups. Such systematic convergence of perceived attractiveness, healthiness, and youthfulness based solely on WHR cannot be attributed to media exposure.

Psi Chi

There are universal responses to our environment that are ideal, including feminine beauty, intelligence, and symmetry.

And while we can change ourselves, that can go either forward (us getting more competent, more moral, healthier and more beautiful) or degenerate:

Our brains—or worse, children’s brains—could be rewired from the fast pace of modern social networking sites, TV shows, and video games, says Oxford University neuroscientist Susan Greenfield. The researcher said this week that kids seem to have more trouble understanding each other (in real life, that is) and focusing in school, and that it could be due to the proliferation of short, bite-sized clips of information in the online world that is causing their brains to physically change.

“My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment,” she told the Daily Mail in an interview this week. “It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations.”

Ars Technica

Natural selection is determined by how we survive.

If we survive by prostituting ourselves, only those naturally inclined to whore will survive.

When people are busy shattering their attention spans with short feedback loop devices, they will eventually set a social standard of short communication.

That social standard will determine who succeeds in the Social Darwinism enacted by our society.

That will determine who breeds and thus, what traits prevail.

Future humans may be short, squat and well-adapted to play video games, but unable to develop philosophy.

Social Darwinism in college admissions

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

White, well-off middle class families still exert a stranglehold over places at the top universities, despite the millions of pounds spent encouraging the poor and moderately well-off to apply, new research reveals.

Children from the richest 2% of all households, are more than four and a half times more likely to study at high-ranking universities such as Bristol and Warwick than children from average neighbourhoods. They are twice as likely as the average child in Britain to go to university at all, according to data exclusive to the Guardian.

Children from the most affluent quarter of families – characterised by researchers as owning two cars and a home with four bedrooms – account for 55% of students at prestigious universities.

The Guardian

There’s a reason why their parents made it to the upper middle class.

There’s a reason why people are impoverished.

It’s not acceptable to say it in polite company, because it makes us all realize how non-autonomous we are.

But truth is the only thing that can save us from ourselves.

Personality types determined by brain chemical

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

There was a great deal of data that people vary in terms of their expression of dopamine and norepinephrine, serotonin, estrogen and oxytocin and testosterone. I culled from the academic literature all of those data points that show that these particular brain-chemical systems are related to certain aspects of personality. And I saw constellations of temperament traits that seemed to be associated with these chemicals.

People who express dopamine — I call them Explorers — tend to be risk-taking, curious, creative, impulsive, optimistic and energetic. The traits associated with the serotonin system express themselves in what I call Builders. They’re cautious but not fearful, calm, traditional, community-oriented, persistent and loyal. Directors have traits associated with activity in the testosterone system. These people tend to be very analytical, decisive, tough-minded; they like to debate and can be aggressive. The fourth type is the Negotiator. Men or women who express activity in the estrogen system tend to be broadminded imaginative, compassionate, intuitive, verbal, nurturing, altruistic and idealistic.


Neat to see this in the mainstream press: affirmation of nature, not nurture. Like articles on how our political outlook is determined by our genes, this is further evidence of how our outlook on life — and thus our values, politics and the tasks we’d be good at — are determined before birth.

Aristocrats are the soul of a nation

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

My belief as to why Sweden keeps the royals around is that Their Majesties provide a direct link to Sweden’s past. If one were to take into account that when you listen to the King speak about the goodness of the Swedish people, you sense that your father, grandfather, great grandfather and so on also listened to that kind of reinforcement.

It’s the idea that this King is related to your descendant’s King that is the comfort. He is a Swede as you are, and that generates the pride in being Swedish. The King (or Queen) is the living touchstone to your nation’s past.

As an American, with the disposable leaders we have, one gives deference to the Office of The President, not to the guy who warms the chair.

The Local

Group identity is destructive unless it works according to organic traits, or things we have naturally in common without having to be indoctrinated in them.

This is why one nation, one culture, one language, one set of values and one heritage is always a workable form of government, and our modern conception is so offended by it — we fear it because it’s what will replace our cosmopolitan, consumerist, mass control societies.

Recommended Reading