Posts Tagged ‘human biodiversity’

Restore Western Civilization

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

Out there in mainstreamland, confusion arises as to what the Alt Right “is.” That verb becomes deceptive because a cultural movement is composed of one thing, and headed toward another. The Alt Right is an aspirational movement but not on an individualistic basis; it is people of this time who desire an entirely different time, one opposed to the illusions we hold sacred now.

In conventional politics, this makes no sense, mostly because the Alt Right opposes politics. A civilization is free of politics until its chain of command becomes broken and internal fighting over power and wealth takes over. At that point, whoever wins the crowd, wins the prize… and so politics becomes a fact of life, infesting even interpersonal relationships far removed from power.

Complicating things, the Alt Right does not state conventional goals because it is ruled by principles, not tangible goals. We want health and sanity, which is what everyone should want as part of that whole adaptation to your environment thing. Those who would deceive you will convince you to target an intermediate instead, like “freedom” or “socialized healthcare,” but that is not the goal itself. It is more of a symbol than an end result.

Even more confusingly, the Alt Right is fundamentally esoteric, which means that it realizes the innate inequality of people in ability and in level of learning. We are not like organized religion or political groups, where a few symbols are written down in such a simplified form that anyone can get enough meaning to participate, essentially erasing any deeper meaning and creating a surface-level understanding that displaces all others because it is simpler and thus more popular.

Let us go back to the simplest of ideas: the Alt Right is a conservative (Right) movement that says what others cannot (Alternative). It recognizes that conventional politics have failed to address the actual issues of consequence and so are a threat to the survival of our society.

That in turn provokes more digging, like a police investigator, to get to the root of this situation. Most track it back to the 1960s, some to the 1940s, even better to the 1920s… but then we see the French Revolution, the Magna Carta, the politics that divided the European monarchy even a thousand years ago. Then we read Plato writing about a golden age thousands of years before him, where society was motivated by an aspirational impetus that was not on an individualistic basis, either.

And so we realize: the collapse of Western Civilization, the strongest human civilization that we know of, has been ongoing for thousands of years. Every year is a little bit worse, but it adds up to a big kaboom at some point, and that kaboom is going to happen in our lifetimes. Either a new civilization is ready to spring up from the ashes, or the kaboom leaves behind only a third-world ruin where beige people speak a simplified version of a once-great language, languish in poverty among crumbling monuments, and otherwise serve as an epitaph and not a continuation for that society.

The Right recognizes a general truth: the problem we face is ourselves, in that without discipline and guidance, we revert to our unruly Simian origins. “Talking monkeys with car keys,” as Kam Lee says. The Right has always stood for Realism; the Left has always championed individualism, or life measured by the human individual. With The Enlightenment,™ the Left won in the West, but it took another few centuries for that to manifest in the Left’s final form, which is a soft totalitarian state — enforced by economics and social norms instead of guns — where non-Leftist opinion is viewed as witchcraft.

On the Right, we realize that “progress” is always an illusion. History is cyclic, meaning that there is a state of harmony and a series of states of increasing disharmony until order is restored. For humans in the West, there is one type of civilization that works and everything else is an ersatz and inferior substitute. The problem is that these failing civilizations go to war against the core of what we are: our People.

We might refer to bad civilization structural designs as “inverse Darwinism,” meaning that instead of encouraging adaptation to our environment, they discourage it entirely by replacing it with illusions which are necessary to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Human society rewards what is against nature and logic through the mechanism of social popularity, which is achieved through ironic and untrue statements that actively defy common sense, such as pacifism, equality, diversity and so on. But these encourage people to believe that what they feel and visualize in their heads alone is more true than reality, and so comfort them, and whoever tells these handy pleasant illusions — a.k.a. “lies” — gets ahead, while those who focus on understanding reality fail.

Through this, society acts like a cheese grater against its own people, shaving off the good and throwing them away while keeping those that are compliant, simplistic, solipsistic and ethically neutral.

Alt Right participants tend to have some views that disturb the person raised in this Leftist, consumerist society. They acknowledge the differences between peoples, groups, sexes, castes and individuals through the study of human differences known as “human biodiversity” (HBD). They realize that inequality of ability obliterates the question of equality of opportunity or outcome. They realize socialist economics fail, but that capitalism needs to be controlled by some kind of hierarchy or it, too, becomes a mechanism of mob rule, just as democracy does.

And yes, they acknowledge race. To concern oneself with civilization and its future means to consider issues like race. We can see that throughout history, healthy societies have been racially homogeneous, where dying societies tend to be racially heterogeneous, and as the degree of the latter increases the society draws closer to senescence. This means that we disdain diversity, or the multi-racial state, and encourage homogeneity for all societies, regardless of who their founding group is. Diversity is death, nationalism is at least a chance for life.

The core of the Alt Right can then be summarized this way: Restore Western Civilization. This once-great promise for all of humanity has been aging and crumbling for centuries or longer as it has deviated from the moral (aspirational non-individualistic) and structural (the four pillars) habits of successful Western civilizations. We cannot avoid this issue and there is only one path to victory. Either that, or we fade away, which is both boring and ugly, and we reject that.

#BLM Discovers The Joy of Human Biodiversity (#HBD)

Tuesday, February 14th, 2017

“Whiteness is not humxness, in fact, white skin is sub-humxn,” she wrote. “All phenotypes exist within the black family and white ppl are a genetic defect of blackness.” – Yosri Khogali of Toronto Black Lives Matter.

OK, ok I’m about to get stoned out of the compound. Even worse than on a typical post. I come to argue that HBD must acquire and exert ownership of its scientific content or it will become a bastardized joke of an academic discipline the way Climate Scientology is currently headed.

It all starts with pointing out the blindingly obvious. You see, #BLM has an intellectual and philosophical problem. No, it doesn’t come from drinking the Molotov Cocktail rather than lighting and throwing it. It happened when they refused the proposition that all lives mattered. At that point they had to explain why, in particular, just Black Lives mattered. At this point, we experience the joy and the pleasure of HBD.

Like the founder of The Harvard University Anthropology Department, we have an idiotic bigot attempting to monetize their own dishonest justification for hatred. Dr. Louis Agassiz practised the psuedo-science of phrenology and attempted to scientifically prove non-Whites were fundamentally inferior. He hated slavery. You see, he was afraid it would lead to race mixing. He was the equal and opposite pole of today’s #BLM Movement.

Unlike Darwin and others, who thought that humans all belonged to one species and that their populations had differentiated through time as they spread geographically and adapted to new environments, Agassiz could not accept that all groups of humans belonged to the same species, and he argued vehemently for the inferiority of non-white human groups. He was not alone in this; several prominent scientists saw populational differences as major and discontinuous, and used various statistical and other arguments to support this. But Agassiz was also physically revulsed by the idea that all humans were equal.

Now Harvard was a leading light of the American Cathedral even back in the 1800s when Agazzis came to be considered a genius for his work in phrenology. Thus it was no great shock that Agassiz’ researxh came to be incorporated into discourse on the floor of the US Senate. In his segregationist manifesto entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Senator Theodore G. Bilbo makes the following scientific claim:

Weight of the (negro) brain, which indicated cranial capacity of 35 ounces, as compared with 20 for the highest gorilla and 45 for the Caucasian.

More accurate numbers can be found here. Yosri Khogali bases her own form of racial scientology on melanin content, rather than cranial capacity:

“[they] have a higher concentration of enzyme inhibitors that suppress melanin production. They are genetically deficient because melanin is present at the inception of life….Melanin enables black skin to capture light and hold it in its memory mode which reveals that blackness converts light into knowledge. Melanin directly communicates with cosmic energy,” she added. Khogali then proclaimed: “White ppl are recessive genetic defects. This is factual.”

This brings us to the current state of HBD as a discipline. Like Climate Science, HBD addresses some of the most controversial topics in the modern field of science. Like Climate Science, HBD has some totally brilliant people (Here, Here , and Here) publishing work.

Sadly, like Climate Science, HBD has some obviously fraudulent ideas loose in the discipline like wolves in a hen house. Also, like Climate Science, these ideas get co-opted for political purposes. If you think the psuedo-sapience of #BLM is atypical, you have blessedly forgotten the extent to which Al “The Earth has a fever!” Gore became a deracinated whack-job for hire over Global Warming.

This sort of deliberate and malignant misuse of science could end next week. Climate Scientists like Dr. Judith Curry have launched a nascent campaign to reclaim the ethical and intellectual respect they feel is due their discipline amongst the Geological Sciences. This is condign. I wish her the best of luck in her crusade against the greedy and the disingenuous.

To bring this to point, HBD needs a Judith Curry. It needs one in the worst way. HBD is right about a lot. This won’t be valued or put to good use if the entire field of endeavor is seen as Melanin-obsessed or as measuring skulls in the basement with Vernier Calipers. It’s up to the intellectual best in the HBD discipline to redeem it as a field of knowledge.

Tiger Society may be sub-optimal

Monday, January 6th, 2014


Amy Chua, formerly of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, is probably a liberal. However, she espouses a very conservative idea: our choices of action determine the results we get.

In Tiger Mother, she outraged parents across the world by showing how if they were willing to work at it, they could make their kids quite successful.

In her newest, The Triple Package, Chua continues the theme — also made popular by Malcolm Gladwell with Outliers: The Story of Success — that how we work determines the results:

The book highlights Jews, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons as groups with three qualities that set them apart. A superiority complex, insecurity and impulse control are the “three cultural forces” driving these groups to achieve a disproportionate amount of success, the authors suggest.

“That certain groups do much better in America than others — as measured by income, occupational status, test scores, and so on — is difficult to talk about. In large part, this is because the topic feels so racially charged,” the authors write in their introduction.

Despite the nod to human biodiversity topics like IQ and race, this is like Gladwell’s book fundamentally about behavior.

While there’s a good side to that, which is emphasizing the non-utilitarian consequentialist nature that is part of conservatism, there’s also a great liberal lie: if we all just follow the procedure, we’ll all turn out successes!

In the liberal democratic mindset, this translates into the following steps:

  1. Find out what successful groups are doing.
  2. Make it into a standardized curriculum.
  3. Teach it aggressively with those who put in the most hours coming out ahead.

Already American education is bigotry in favor of those who put in the most hours. We are not promoting our smartest students, only our most diligent. The result is a flood of memorizers and imitators like the fools we have in Washington and San Francisco who are highly praised but unable to come up with solutions to real-world problems.

They will try to re-style the question as creativity, entrepreneurship, “hard work” (translation: putting in more hours than anyone else), and other distractions. The question however is not hours or some quirky skill, but a fundamental skill, leadership, which enables someone to identify the necessary task and take steps to accomplish it, usually in company of others.

Chua’s book, like Gladwell’s before it, is another step toward this standardization. If they have their way, children will have no free time and the nation’s top students will work 80 hours a week from age 5 to 30 in order to “prove” they belong at the top. This will get us another layer of witless elites who appear competent but are fundamentally people of no judgment, discernment or ability for long-term thinking.

As my wife just pointed out as we sit here in bed reading, Amy Chua married Jed Rubenfeld. She’s Chinese and he’s Jewish. They’re both from the type of high-performance group she touts as ideal. However, the question here becomes: does such high performance make an ideal society? Another way to phrase that is: why are they here instead of there among the high-performers?

My theory here is that high performance itself is a trap that makes a society nearly intolerable. By rewarding hoop-jumping instead of real-world application of knowledge, we limit the field and make it a competition for hours not ability. This chases away anyone with the brains to do anything else, and so the best become childless artists and the mediocre become elites. While they may be technically intelligent, they have lost the skill of making a society worth living because they have lost the ability to have applied knowledge, and thus they make a society that is pure competition and no joy. It becomes a negative place where people slave away their whole lives to get into the elites, and when they get there, they become utterly insensate to the plight of those below them and act aggressively only for their own advancement. High performance competition creates a self-parasitic society.

As conservatives remind us, the origins of European society lay in the classical ideal: every thing in its place, for perfect balance, leading to a transcendental beauty and joy. This is the opposite of the high performance society because it does not embrace performance for its own sake, but performance in the service of an ideal, like achieving “the good, the beautiful and the true.” It made a better society, which is why they all want to come here instead of live in high performance China.