Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


So our good Russian friend Anatoly Karlin had this take on his blog

I paste the complete link because the URL is quite ominous, "climate bioleninism". Imagine that. Karlin there makes a point that ideas that flatter the upper-class, like global warming, become entrenched, while ideas that they find inconvenient, like the genetic load of IQ or HBD more generally get killed or ostracized, no matter how solid the science behind them.

Seems Karlin thought I wouldn't like talk of Class Struggle, but he's wrong. I'm a great fan of the idea. The perhaps most basic part of my thinking is that whatever exists, exists for a reason. It follows that whatever is popular must have something going on for it. I'm certainly no Marxist, but there is much wisdom in Marxist theory, and I personally think that Class Struggle was a conceptual bomb which was so good and so powerful at the time that it basically destroyed and replaced Christianity all by itself. Well, I exaggerate, but not by much.

Incidentally, and I only learned of this recently, apparently in China, the idea that “everything exists for a reason", 存在即合理, is taught in high-schools and universities across the country, and is part of the official Communist Orthodoxy there. Apparently they took it from Hegel, I guess through Marx being a Hegelian and all that. The original being was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig. It more accurately translates to "if it exists, it is reasonable". Pretty much half of Chinese websites frequented by college students are a debate on this one clause, mostly because college students there as everywhere else are all obsessed with morality and they interpret the word "reasonable" as meaning "good". Yes, it's all so tiresome.

Anyway, I wrote many, many years ago, that Class Struggle is the reason that things like HBD will never in a million years become widely accepted. Check this 2012 post. The idea is: the most powerful force in the world is the drive for upward status mobility. People crave more status. The second most powerful force in the world is the need for status conservation. If you can't raise in status, you want at least to keep what you have, and you want to keep the status of your whole family; ideally your whole Dunbar circle. That's what Social Class is, a big fat fence to make sure your family never ever drops in status. Given that actual performance is mostly genetic, social class tends to persist over centuries, (as Karlin mentions quoting Gregory Clark's The Son Also Rises), but there's some randomness to genetics too, and upper classes tend to do strange things to their mating practices in order to aid their status-conservation plans, like having too few children or marrying late, so some degree of social class movement does still happen.

Unless you take the Status Conservation Drive to its final logical conclusion, and go full-Hindu on it. Indians went full-retard on social class, and divided their society in 30,000 jatis, ranked more or less in castes, and never ever shall they mix or change their rank. They made social classes into full-fledged ethnic groups. That's what happens when the upper-class gets what they want. Complete and Eternal Status Conservation. Of course that's in the end just a psychological thing, if inter-subjective. Brahmins are high-status but they're not necessarily rich or handsome, and those are sources of real-world status too, at least today in capitalist society. But Indians seem over all to be quite happy with their system, and everybody knows their place.

All other societies failed to codify social class, and Abrahamic religions went out of their way to demonize the idea and preach universalism. Everybody is valuable, it's all about the individual. That has its advantages, as it allows high-performers to rise in status no matter their pedigree. It is not by chance that Muslims have lorded over India for 1,000 years and not the other way around. But no amount of preaching by Christians or Muslims is able to cancel that fundamental mental drive of humans: we all want our children to inherit our social standing, or improve it if possible.

That's what I mentioned in that old post of mine, and I still stand by it. I think a big part of the motivation for foreign immigration into Western countries is that white people like that their social inferiors are visibly so. Canada has (had?) this funny way of talking about non-white people, Visible Minorities. White proles are just as white as White Aristocrats. But a Guatemalan or Pakistani maid is just obviously made of a different stock than her master. And she likes that. Her son won't fool around with the maid. She can talk differently with her, be ruder or more annoying than a native prole, who knows more of local manners, would tolerate. The way I put it back then is: Prole co-ethnics are the personification of downward mobility. And everybody hates downward mobility, so the physical replacement of proles who look like you is actually a very good proposition for most people. Call this the Housewife Theory of the Great Replacement. Somebody put it in French please.

The same applies for the male business owner. If I had a dollar for everytime a white business owner has praised their brown employees over the native kids, I'd be a billionaire. "They work harder, they're hungrier, they're just better and more honest people". Nah, they just take more shit, mostly because they can't really understand what you're saying. And you love giving it to them, because half the reason you started a business is because you just enjoy giving people shit.

And indeed, the reason why IQ-realism, which is the most obvious of all obvious aspects of human nature, will never get anywhere, is because we have a "meritocracy". Access to the ruling class today is mediated by "education", i.e. by schools and universities, in which supposedly some magical things are said, and students there listen to a lot of those magical things, read some others, then re-write them into "papers", and suddenly they become smarter, so that's why they deserve the highest status that our society allots. It's all designed so that every piece of status gained can be traced to some piece of "work", i.e. "merit", so if you don't have high status, well, you should have worked harder! This moral logic only works if the output per unit of work (i.e. intelligence, or 'performance' if you will) is assumed to be equal among all humans,.

If intelligence is not equally distributed, then social status is not about work (merit), but about whatever it is that intelligence comes from. If it's genes, bad, because then everyone and their dog (remember, *everyone*'s paramount interest in life is social status) will try to interfere in genetics and mating, most likely through the power of the state. If it's random, that's somewhat better in that the likely government intervention wouldn't be as jarring (no interfering in who mates with whom), but still not good enough, as it deprives high-status people of the satisfaction of their status being "earned". Aristocrats didn't think their status was earned, and they were perfectly happy, but our modern liberal ruling class, as good Puritans has taken their Christian universalism to heart, and must believe that they not only get to rule over you, but that they earned the right to rule over you. This relates with the much greater willingness of liberal elites to interfere in the lives of their subjects.

Note the hysterical reaction against genetic determinism is in no small part motivated by fear of public interference in mating. Or to put it plainly, in sex. It is rather odd that liberals, not really leftists but pretty much 90% of modern white people go batshit crazy at hearing the word "eugenics". Why? Eugenics is the science of improving the population's genes. What is wrong with that? "Aggh!! Evil!!" Evil? How so?

Because it would entail breaking up couples and having a cold, rational appraisal of who should be fucking whom. And people hate that idea. For good reason, to be fair. You like who you like. Attraction is not a choice. Men often like their sluts, or grow fond of the plain Janes that the so painstakingly were able to attract, but they don't want to talk about it. And women all too often get carried away by their hybristophilia and decide to mate with dumb, evil, violent men. All of which would not just be disapproved of, but actively impeded by a society and a state with eugenics in its mind. So in order that people can keep having sex with the bad partners of their choice, the word "eugenics" must be made a taboo, and the mere concept must be erased from the minds of all the good-thinking.

That won't change until either liberal society dies, replaced by whichever traditional society outbreeds it (Islam if we're lucky, Black Africa if we're not, some brand of Christianity if there's a miracle). Or until somebody develops a viable means of ectogenesis, i.e. artificial wombs. That would mean procreation is completely divorced from sex. An optimistic take on that possibility is Aldous Huxley's masterpiece, Brave New World. In these days of feminism and Globohomo, I fear it wouldn't be as pleasant. That said, it could be here soon.


Leave a Reply
  • Well I think we need to define eugenics in context here. If all you are referring to is simply re-instituting arranged marriage, discouragement of miscegenation, and patriarchal control of women, I dont think anyone here would disagree with you. If you are referring to test-tube babies, deep research of partners genes before marriage, cloning, or engaging in gene-splicing to make some sort of superhuman ruling class; I would argue that's completely different. That's an unneeded and as you said, frankly unwanted level of tampering (for the most part).

    • Once we have detailed knowledge of what genes do what, what's stopping us from going that far? There's no obvious Schelling Point between patriarchy and full-fledged artificial selection.

      • I can't disagree with that to be honest, but it just feels like a bridge too far. Plus, as I think you very well know, the wignat/nazi connotations from earlier in history do not help.

        • Yawn: The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jew supremacists demand censorship. Only lies require censorship. The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds. See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: No name calling, level playing field debate here:

      • Peter Frost has noted the stagnancy of caste societies like India: Downward mobility of those in the upper strata(and rising of talent to greater status) due to greater individualism in England is how the whole country was able to raise its IQ. And eventually make possible the industrial revolution. Unintentional Eugenics. A farewell to alms situation was able to develop as a result. Unlike India.

        • @Spandrell What's your opinion on this article? I am certainly not for the caste system of India. It just makes a society frozen in place unable to improve and uncompetitive with other nations. The British with their downward mobility conquered them.

          • I did mention Hinduism lost to Islam, let alone the British Empire. But it's stable.

          • @Spandrell Indeed. But I would surmise that it is actually stagnant. To lack the evolutionary pressure that is more present in class societies with more social mobility. It is in danger of long term destruction by groups that aren't caste systems. Or long term extinction in general from the changing environment as earth changes necessitating evacuation of the planet or do other daring and innovative things but unable to do so because of a low general IQ of the general society that is the result of the prevention of downward mobility of higher IQ genes throughout its entire society. Preventing accomplishment that would be more possible if such social mobility existed.

          • @Spandrell The industrial and scientific revolution is made possible alongside the understanding of a rational universe with underlying made by a rational creator because a critical mass of hi-IQ people have been achieved as a result of long-term downward mobility in general and Hi-IQ people ascending the social ladder due to their abilities. Hence why Western Europe started to take off.

          • Here is a thread on Indian hierarchy: One of the worst styles of business management ever. As a result of the Caste system influence. Now in China a business man has invented a much more effective form of hierarchy: A documentary on them: More on this kind of organization

      • “Once we have detailed knowledge of what genes do what, what’s stopping us from going that far?” Unnecessary. There has been no technical limitation stopping anyone for a while. You need nothing but sufficient population, some decent tests and good note taking. Come the present, it is an almost trivial matter. With some math and modern statistics to run predictions and calculate gains as well as artificial insemination, selection is easy. Sure, optimisation might be quite difficult, but humans are unimproved, and so any talk of optimisation is premature. Example: (Quick toy model (probably not very accurate) for IQ. This is just going to be mass selection, which is very inefficient, since realistically you would be calculating the EBVs for all the individuals and thus getting a much better guess at their actual value, but that is basically the point: even with no effort you can make massive gains) Mean = 100, SD = 15, h^2 = 0.6 (maybe an underestimate). If you repeatedly truncate everything below average (updating the average each time), you get: (measured from offspring) 1st Gen: 107 2nd Gen: 114 3rd Gen: 122 … 6th Gen: 140 This model isn’t to be taken too seriously (makes a few assumptions and the values are dubious), and as mentioned, is way simpler than what you would use in a proper program, but the point is that selective breeding, when dealing with unimproved stock and a decent heritability, is ridiculously easy. Not to mention that realistically there is no reason to start with an average of 100, and as mentioned, you would be using EBVs rather than just taking a bunch of people and testing them and because of artificial insemination, surrogates, sex selection, etc., you could quickly create large populations and be far more selective than just removing half. You could have a superhuman ruling class in very little time. You might not even need to wait until the next generation is mature, since females are born with embryos (assuming they work at that point). The generation intervals could be really quite short. The strange thing is that no one has bothered to do it.

        • What could (could, remotely!) give people pause in going that way is preoccupation with what the uber-humans would do to them later. However, technological progress spirals because it's a competitive multiplayer race (just like status races). So it will happen, when the knowledge makes it possible. You seem eager to have a "super-human ruling class". Maybe you are sure it will bring good on all of us.

      • Why do think there is no obvious Schelling point between patriachy and full fledged artificial selection. I think there is. In a patriarchy the patriarch decides who his daughter mates with. In full-fledged artifical selection, the daugther is taken from the patriarch, presumably by some bureaucrat. Just imgaine what would happen in a patriarch society if the government took the daughters from the patriarchs. I assume the patriarchs sure would agree that there is a Schelling point to oppose that.

  • Excellent read as usual Spandrell. One thing though is how would your theory of elites seeking to make class more rigid and visible by displacing co-ethnic proles fit in with the fact that on the other hand they've also opened the gates for higher IQ immigration by foreign groups, who pose a direct threat in relation to status conservation to their future generations

    • A couple of points for consideration: 1. Most people actually believe the horseshit about IQ (more accurately g, but I assume 'most people' aren't talking about this in a sophisticated way) being 'earned'. There's a core of animal cynicism on this point, but there's also probably an evolved layer purpose-built for believing lies one tells oneself. 2. The elite bringing in the high IQ immigrants (or pushing for it) are themselves high-IQ elites. The Sergei Brins have Sundar Pichais working for them; no chance an Indian of any IQ is going to create Google from scratch. Same goes for China. They're impressive engineers. They copy well, and they even incrementally improve to the point of first-rate tech. But flashes of imaginative genius and innovation? Not so much.

  • How does this theory of elites accommodate the fact that as a result of bioleninist processes, POC are becoming the new elites? Are the white elites unaware of the fact that their kids/grandkids will likely stop being part of the elite, and will become an oppressed and despised minority?

    • The Revolution always eats its own.

      Plenty of elites are Republican. Those love foreign labor too.

    • POCs are not "becoming the new elites". Some few POCs are joining the elite -- that's true. But "the"? No way. "The" elite, to the extent that there is a "the", is still very white. Far, far whiter than the population. Look at any group that is chosen by intellectual merit. (So, not politicians, to take one counter-example.) Depending on the exact selection mechanism, what you will find is whites, Jews, East Asians, and some Indians (high caste ones). The white elites believe (with much justification) that the future elite will be rainbow-nationy. They also think their posterity will continue to be elite. Remember that they think that education is the key to success; that it actually makes people smarter. Well, they are doing what it takes to get little Caitlyn the best education they can, and they privately scoff at deplorables who are willing to send little Greg to some so-so public school.

      • You would want to send your kids to the good school when HBD is true also. I think that a lot of elites have HBD doublethink. But on this issue, it really doesn't matter. The good school is full of well-behaved, high IQ kids to absorb the right values from and to make the right connections with.

    • The elite despise their own children who fail to measure up and adopt POCs as surrogate children.

    • POC are not becoming the new elites. Their elite status is completely artificial; they glow with reflected light. In the typical Country of Color, a random white Eastern European has more status than the local Elite of Color. I may not go as far to claim that it's impossible to have an Elite of Color lording over a white population, but I can't think of any examples. Unless we stretch the "of color", of course.

      • South Africa comes to mind, if you are looking for an example of an elite of color lording over a white population.

    • If your kid mates with an elite Asian, your status is preserved into the next generation. If we floor the elite at 130, then anyone hanging out with your kids needs to be at least this smart. The lingering gut reaction against mixing with blacks and Hispanics is the dreaded affirmative action - the solid gold guarantee of rank is not terribly solid there. If your kid mates with a random white person, their status will almost certainly go down, from both the clucking of neighbors, and also the reduced IQ. The average white person has an average IQ. This means taking a dunk. Goodbye McMansion, hello McShack. This is the opposite dynamic from the lower stratas. Among ye regular people, marrying a random minority will almost certainly reduce the IQ and status of future generations, while marrying a random white person will be fine. Accordingly, elites around the globe have formed one giant artificial globohomo tribe, with a homogeneous culture and shared rites. Why not, if you already think similarly? Culture is partly the codification of genetic predilections. Elites around the world convergently evolved into high IQ value transferrers, so now they can oppress the workers of the world. The workers of the world should unite to preserve their own unique cultures and beat back the forces of transnational aristocracy.

      • As I have posted above. Excess sons should be allowed to marry women of lower social class and that across all layers of the social hierarchy if she is sufficiently physically attractive and of good character. Because in the long-term this will cause the entire IQ of the society to rise as higher IQ genes are continuously added to the lower classes. This is why Britain was the one that had the industrial revolution. As their entire society was Hi IQ enough to make that possible.

  • I quite disagree with your diagnosis of why progressives hate "eugenics". They hate it for several reasons, to wit: (1) Hitler did it, and Hitler Bad (like Orange Man). (2) sterilizing criminals, retards, etc. violates modern notions of equality -- that everyone is just as valuable as everyone else, in the eyes of God, because there is that of God in everyone. (3) it would be racist. I don't think I've ever seen anyone, no matter how evil, arguing that the state should actually break up marriages for eugenic reasons. I have no idea where you're getting that from. Also, let me note as a side issue that "eugenics" in modern political discourse always means "science of improving the population’s genes via state action". This does not include, for example, aborting fetuses with Down's syndrome. We are well on our way to eliminating Down's syndrome in the West, by the simple expedient of prenatal testing and abortion of all such fetuses, without the slightest popular notion that what we're doing is eugenics. Abortion is women's rights is good, and eugenics is bad; therefore, abortion cannot be eugenic.

    • You have no idea where I'm getting that from? Plain logic.

      Think about it. If eugenics were public policy, people would find it the right and moral thing to do. Every marriage would then be a matter of eugenic policy, and people would intervene all the time.

      China doesn't do eugenics but they do have a strong folk understanding of genetics and every marriage is a huge topic where words like "genetic quality" are thrown around casually.

      And, by the way, Catholics make a huge issue of aborting sick children, Down's and others, and they are pretty numerous even today.

      • I am aware that there are people opposed to abortion, who apparently care enough about "life" to saddle themselves with a drooling idiot for N years. Good for them. (?) But this varies by the society: in societies like Denmark and Iceland that have progressed further into post-Christianity, Down's is all but gone. I find it a huge jump of logic to go from "eugenics is public policy" to breaking up existing marriages. Or (somewhat more tolerable) even vetoing who is allowed to marry whom. I have no doubt that these would be highly unpopular policies, exactly as you say, and that is why they would not be implemented outside of a pretty oppressive authoritarian regime. There are many eugenic public policies that don't involve such dramatic coercion. In particular, the most obvious eugenic public policy is: keep out immigrants from low-IQ populations. Here are some other eugenic policies nowhere near as coercive as vetoing marriages and forced abortions. Encourage immigration of high-IQ populations. Encourage emigration of low-IQ citizens. (Outlawing used to be a thing.) Other low-coercion public policies: require genetic testing and councilling for marriage licenses, like Jews do (albeit voluntarily) to suppress Tay-Sachs. Require genetic testing and councilling for all pregnancies. Subsidize high-IQ children in ways that encourage parents to have them.

        • You're being a little obtuse here. It needn't be about People With Guns going around and breaking up existing marriages. But if eugenics were public policy, i.e. a social Schelling Point, or to put it in modern woke terms, if eugenics were "who we are", even if no outright coercion by the state was decreed, people in bad marriages would very soon find out that their bad choices result in a drop in social status for them. People would literally talk about nothing else. If Eugenics is Who We Are, then 90% of gossip out there would be about genetics. The way that 90% of gossip among women in offices is about Feminism and Diversity. There's a reason why politics tends to be about all or nothing, even when, as you say, there's a perfectly reasonable middle ground which would be more conducive to social harmony. But that's not how humans work. Once the truth of genetics is out there, there is no plausible Schelling Point for not going all in. Who cares about "human rights" and "privacy" when we're talking about the Progress of the Species? It's not like God exists anyway. Unprincipled exceptions don't last long absent China-tier levels of censorship. And even China has trouble shutting the people up.

          • I once read an Italian associate professor of Economics suggest the imposition of a €5000 fee per offspring, noting that it would suffice to do most of the eugenics we should want to do. It could be argued whether the rightest amount be 5k or 10k, but I mostly agree with that lad's idea.

          • (as Stefan Molyneux never tires of saying): stop forcing the more productive swaths of the populace to subsidize people who make bad mating choices. For various reasons (which would require a discussion in their own) bad reproductive choices have been strongly sponsored/backed by States (or coercively by their more productive swaths).

          • OK, it seems you've backed off from "the state is breaking up marriages" to "people are gossiping about other people". Which alarms me not at all. (Although I will note that you never actually said "the state is breaking up marriages", just kind of implied it.) Indeed, I rather like the sound of eugenics being "who we are". (New Religion!!) First of all, it is in fact consonant with the ends of the neocameral state. Second, better people -- healthier, stronger, smarter, longer lived, less criminal, etc. -- are good in and of themselves, and for themselves. Or look at it this way. Currently if there's anything that induces people to "literally talk about nothing else", what is it? Politics. Impeach Trump! Because, as you say: it is "who we are" -- a bunch of nosey nellies. (Feminism and diversity figure, but it's more.) People are going to talk about something; yammering to each other is indeed "who we are". If we can restrict it to the sexual choices of acquaintances, there is no left singularity. That's a win. People in "bad" marriages breaking up? Well, we have marriages dissolving right and left now, good and bad, because of "muh feels". Breaking up only the dysgenic ones? Seems like an improvement.

            • Well of course it's a massive improvement. But your average mediocre person in his mediocre marriage doesn't want that! He'd rather keep yammering to each other about impeaching Trump. He'd rather mediocrity is "who we are", because that's who he is. If we were about the pursuit of excellence, the Eye of Gossiping Sauron would look very badly on him/her. So let's keep talking about Trump please.

  • Maybe "le grand remplacement" pour les ménagères, ou la version femme au foyer du "grand remplacement"... Talking about eugenics, I recently learned Tex Watson (one of the Manson children) fathered 4 children during conjugal visits. Being quite pessimistic, I expect to see more and more shit out of the left field. But this one still got me. Not that it happen, but I would expected more public outrage and at least a political discussion about conjugal visits...

  • I think Spandrell is mostly wrong about the root causes of objections to eugenics. There is a traditionalist Christian objection, and we can debate its origins, but the modern leftist objections have much more to do with eugenics' intellectual pedigree (NAZIS!) Nowadays, even conservatives have absorbed the left's arguments and may shout "NAZIS!", but that's what conservatives do ("Democrats are the real racists!") I would compare this to something like veganism/vegetarianism. Humans have a primal objection to being told that we must deny our carnivorous nature and eat only rabbit food, just as we do to being told whom we can breed with. Yet this has never drawn half the vitriol that eugenics does; even Catholics traditionally accepted it for Lent, and the notion is embraced by the left in principle, if only seldom in practice.

    • Maybe humans just don't have a "primal objection to being told that we must deny our carnivorous nature".

      Shouting "Nazi!" to things that you don't like it's a learned behaviour, which follows, not precedes, instinct. I'm not even saying that humans have a "primal objection" to being told who they should sleep with; but modern, post-sexual revolution people certainly hate it.

  • >it (Islam if we’re lucky, Black Africa if we’re not, some brand of Christianity if there’s a miracle). Islam is the worst. anything is better than Islam. Whole religion full of arrogant, dumb people.

    • Islam is orders of magnitude preferable to Haiti. Go visit a Muslim country. They're bad, but they're nowhere as bad as Haiti or any African country.

      • Why not both? Somalia is a Muslim country. Also, speaking as someone born and raised in the UK, I think Pakistani immigrants are much worse than Africans (except Somalis). That might be because African immigrants are from the right end of their bell curve, but, for the time being it's a fact, and in so far as anti-Muslim sentiment acts a proxy for anti-Pashtun policies I'm all for it.

  • Pakistani maid indeed! Don't you know, O Kuffar, that the Momeen would never allow their womenfolk to work in the Households of a Kuffar, regardless of the color of their skin? You may employ Guatemalan maids alright, but your suggestion that the faithful of Pakistan (or indeed of any land within Dar-Ul-Islam) would allow their women to work in your households is preposterous and quite out of place. Your womenfolk may work in our household, that is but just and proper and the wish of Allah, indeed it delights Allah! But our women in your households? Ridiculous! I've never heard such Balderdash! I strongly urge you to learn more about Islam, perhaps then you will come out of such misapprehensions regarding the this Grandest of Faiths. Why, you might even become one of us! Allahu-Akhbar!

  • I'm sure that for the majority of written history in non-primitive society plenty men and women had choice in men/women taken away from them. Sooo, if anything, eugenics would be far easier to execute than you say accounting for technology and the overall social situation. The problems you speak of with executing eugenics are all a matter of how technology can constrain as well as unleash. Abortion on demand, "economic independence", The Pill, social media, and whatever else I didn't mention combined hordes of thirsty and/or bluepilled (if knowingly) males all to willing to enforce globohomo have removed the dangers of defying your authority when it comes to seeing men/women. A man in a Medieval European village caught with the wrong woman risked a serious mangling thanks to dishonoring a daughter and/or cucking a son/brother. A woman risked ostracism and the stain a tainted child. Nowadays, if a White guy caught Jabongo trying to muh dik his daughter and shot him he'd get arrested then branded with the label of "racist."

  • mostly because college students there as everywhere else are all obsessed with morality and they interpret the word “reasonable” as meaning “good”. Yes, it’s all so tiresome. Tiresome particularly because there's no possible end to it, for the reasons at the above link. "Morality" discussion, as well as "morality" enforcement, are (increasingly so!) the best adaptive mental and cultural tools to achieve some ends -- ends that, as one of my univ. professors said, came to the fore and become essential once one's belly is no longer empty --. I am not going to check graphs of usage over time of words like "community" "self-interested" "selfish" "selfless" "social" "antisocial", but it obviously is on the rise, and a sharp rise, for all of them. All of this is what has replaced physical confrontation and warfare, in a nutshell.

    • Hegel said, by the word: what is rational (reasonable) is real, what is real is rational (reasonable). But 1) Hegel was a master of social status acquisition (the opposite of Schopenhauer, his contemporary) 2) What Hegel wrote and meant doesn't bear necessarily much commonality with what Hegel has been made to have written and meant when his work has served the most different political and cultural uses. Real philosophy can't be used to do battle in the arena of ideas -- you have to misrepresent it before it can be useful (or it hasn't to be real philosophy to begin with).

      • I think a big part of the motivation for foreign immigration into Western countries is that white people like that their social inferiors are visibly so. because half the reason you started a business is because you just enjoy giving people shit. This is the most truth-daring blog I know of.

  • Hi Spandrell, I see your point, not sure I like the terminology. Class struggle implies the lower classes have a chance to fight on their own. They don't. They are always the pawns of upper class factions to be used against each other. So status conservation is not about elites being afraid of up and coming proles. It is elites being afraid of other elites using up and coming proles against them. What seems to be missing from the model is that the current political formula, legitimizing myth is equality. Which is fake of course. But equality as a legitiziming myth makes it very easy to for elites to use proles against other elites. > I think a big part of the motivation for foreign immigration into Western countries is that white people like that their social inferiors are visibly so. This used to be solved by wearing different clothes and suchlike. The legitimizing myth does not allow this. Paul Graham has this fun idea that if you resurrect Lenin and send him to the Silicon Valley he would think communism won because billioniare business owner and average senior developer wears the same clothes, even drives similar cars, call each other first names etc. > Prole co-ethnics are the personification of downward mobility. Downward mobility also depends on the legitimizing myth of equality. It means status cannot be ossified into openly admitted ranks and titles and suchlike. It gives people, even upper classes a status anxiety. They are never really sure of their status. It is quite fleeting these days, mostly depends on quickly changing opinions, one day you are considered a respected business owner next day a years old video of going on a drunk racist rant gets published and your reputation is over. Reminds me of the great book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. Russel makes a point that in the Roman Empire it was not actually the low status people who adopted Christianity first. It was people with ambiguous status. Status anxiety. Widows of rich men, having considerable liberty and money, but still second-class citizens. Good artisan slaves who bought their freedom, making good money, being freedmen made them still second-class citizens. Scott Alexander's zebra theory is also good. People compete only with people directly below and above them. If people directly below you are "A", or do "A", or say "A", you go with "B" to differentiate yourself. People above you might go with A again to differentiate themselves from you. So the poorest of course want welfare, one level above people want to signal they do not need welfare so they are against it and vote conservative, one level above they want to signal they can afford to pay welfare for others so they vote left, one level above they want to signal that they do not need to signal that they can afford to pay welfare.... My brain didn't boot properly this morning, so these are just some superficial observations as for now. A sudden hot weather after a long cold spell makes funny sleep.

    • I hate to say it, but equality, egalitarianism has the highest "darwinian fitness" for a meme as a legitimizing myth, because all others just excuse why some people are elites and other are plebs, while egalitarianism either flat out denies it (in fullcommunism, where Comrade Boss pretends to be a humble proletarian) or at least it makes elites seen as non-elites who are fighting elites to reduce inequality. Elites who pretend to be non-elites are the safest in the sense of not even really needing legitimization. And it sucks. Which means we need to change the game so that it is not the darwinian fitness of the legitimizing myth of a system matters most, but the darwinian fitness of some other key aspect of it.

  • State-based eugenics is a bad idea. It's a horrible idea. It's terrible, just thinking about it, the tyrannies and abominations that could result from a group of people having conscious control over the human genome.

    • Thanks for confirming my point. Note that the only alternative to state-based eugenics is state-based repression of eugenics and any scientific discipline that even remotely leads to eugenics. Thanks.

      • The alternative to eugenics is natural selection. As it's always been. The role of the state is nothing but creating a framework of laws which let successful people succeed. Maybe because you are an "absolutist" it would be favourable to you to have a large portion of the population as essentially a slave race for an elite. Or maybe you just have limited imagination if you can't think of negative consequences of giving a central authority tools that are even more efficacious than arbitrary killings in permanently ending any dissent against itself. I can see it now. Some sort of social credit system that determines your reproductive rights. Not productive enough to pay taxes? Have heterodox political views or lifestyle choices? Not respectful enough to womyn? Welp, looks like you don't have reproductive privileges anymore. Brave New World, here we come (I assume you have read that book, at least). You can have good insights, but you lack perspective in your prescriptions.

  • “They work harder, they’re hungrier, they’re just better and more honest people”. Nah, they just take more shit, mostly because they can’t really understand what you’re saying. And you love giving it to them, because half the reason you started a business is because you just enjoy giving people shit." I wont post anymore that you should own a real business to understand how the world actually works but this paragraph is "Exhibit A" of not getting it. Obviously there are business owners that fit this mold (trust fund "business owners" spring to mind) but if you have ever engaged in real business this is laughable. * "They work harder". Not even a contest. * "they’re hungrier". Also no contest. * "they’re just better". In regards to working almost always true. * "more honest people". Like for like usually true. Not sure that I have ever hired a white laborer where small items don't accidentally leave in their pockets (I have hired several thousand people so not working with a small sample). * "because half the reason you started a business is because you just enjoy giving people shit". Ignorant hater thought patterns. If you are running a real business you simply do what works. Hiring white tweakers who talk a good game gets really tiring. I'm curious why everyone HBD inclined is so threatened by business owners. We are the only ones that have any real life ability to influence the world. It's interesting that we are hated by the left and the right. The best I can come up with is that both sides are just parasitic.

    • While you get drunk on your self-righteousness, those brown people colonize our countries and make life harder for everyone else.

    • If foreign workers are as you claim, so superior: Why do they also get preferential hiring treatment (affirmative action)? Why do we subsidize them working for less by allowing them to receive welfare at higher rates? Why do business owners get gibs for hiring non-whites/women? Since you've "hired thousands", I'm sure that figured into your decisions. Did you ever consider that, or was it all just about the "bottom line"? ...Is your last name Koch, by any chance?

    • I assume you are familiar with IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and with the work of La Griffe du Lion on smart fraction theory. Well then, you should be aware that the third world is the third world for a reason: because of the people who live there. Your short-term profits have a cost: the long term effect of bringing in populations with lower IQ (as well as things that correlate with it: law-abidingness, conscientiousness, etc.). Put another way: you're singing the praises of "immigrants". But what of the second generation? The third and fourth? Do you hire them? You probably don't, for the perfectly good reason that they tend to revert to their population's norm. How about you try to influence our government not to swamp our genepool with people who will reduce us to the third world? This will require you take a slight hit to your profits.

      • Leonard your points are accurate. I no longer own a business that uses large amounts of labor but if I did I would be totally fine with lower profits and a higher standard of living. You basically stated differently what I was saying: if people that cared own businesses they can make real life decisions that create the world everyone else lives in. The reality instead is that Sailer/Spandrell etc have an undisguised hatred of business owners. Dave my opinion is that the only hope American born workers have is to get rid of welfare. All of it. People really are sitting at home on drugs playing video games. On the rare occasion they emerge blinking into the light they are incapable of work. Business owners should not get welfare either. Spandrell I work with what life is. Starting life as a poor person I never had the luxury of creating an imaginary world to live in. Welfare has destroyed any desire to work and your answer is more welfare. You may as well be advocating AOC's positions: both roads lead to the same place.

        • If you had written the last paragraph first, I might even answer you. But instead what you did first was accuse me and Steve Sailer of "hatred". So I'll leave you alone with the shame of speaking like a progressive woman.

        • > The reality instead is that Sailer/Spandrell etc have an undisguised hatred of business owners. You are confusing "they hate me" with "I suspect they are not paying me the respect I think I deserve."

        • Re: Welfare: There needs to be welfare. Shit happens, and poor, desperate people are antithetical to liberty (because they commit crimes and are susceptible to Communist arguments). What needs to happen is the welfare needs to be collected and distributed locally, ideally on no larger than a county level. There's a lot more that needs to happen, e.g. universal suffrage has to end. RIght now it's a 50/50 bet enough gets done to avoid an eventual Balkanization of the USA.

          • There needs to be some intervention, but not necessarily welfare. The devil finds work for idle hands. Public works work better. But the ideal intervention generates a market need for the low IQ idle hands and the rest is market forces. Hence Moldy's idea of selectively banning automation or imports in a few narrow fields like toymaking or shoemaking, because any low-IQ dude can whittle a wooden toy. Welfare is useful only if it can be turned into a tool for policing. Like in a NAM neighborhood make some local gang boss the official boss, let him hand out welfare as he sees fit, deny it to troublemakers, let him steal part of it, make him understand if the NAMs make any trouble for whites welfare will be cut, and let him police them any way he wants to. This is an old, functional colonial pattern.

    • One more thing came to mind, "Mike1". I was working a shit job for awhile. Low pay, shitty conditions, exploitative employer, bad for the local economy, but I needed to do it at the time. We hired a young native man of inner Hajnal extraction. He was strong, bright, and worked his ass off. Dirty, hard, painful work. He worked long hours, was eager to please, eager & quick to learn, and extremely good natured. He didn't know anything about economics, politics, etc. I gave him a crash course on those, and worked with him for several weeks, teaching him basic skills easily transferable to other jobs. I then encouraged him to look for other work and hold out for the best wage he could get, and urged him to go to trade school for something that pays well. He left soon after, thank God. So, this might explain why you can't find/retain native born workers. You don't pay enough, and you aren't concerned with the future of the nation. FYI, there's more than one guy like me out there guiding future generations.

  • Not that my opinion matters but I'm very grateful you changed your motto back to, "We will drown and nobody shall save us". To add to the artificial womb debate. Skin cells from Women can be made into eggs. It's sperm that makes eggs turn into babies. Very inconvenient for Women's current source of power when artificial wombs are viable. How many Men will get married and risk the present 50% loss when you could have the child on your own THEN get married? How many Women, if Men stopped marrying, would accept, say $500, for a few skin cells? Even much higher rates would not be much of a problem.

      • Actually, I have a question here. Having read through your posts on Bioleninism (very convincing) I'm left with a question. If the "leftist" approach is a coalition of the low status, then why is this collective so hostile, in an ultra-traditional way, to lower status, outsider males, specifically those that women don't find sexually attractive? Shouldn't they be prime recruitment fodder? But where the rule seems to be "take a low status group and make them (for in-group purposes) high-status, while stoking envy at actual high-status groups or individuals", the one exception to the rule is the arguably most sizeable low-status group of all: the sexually undesirable male (going by the 80/20 rule and attraction-rate distribution curves you have yourself highlighted). The undesirable male is, at best, treated with as much contempt as he ever has been, often in fact even more so. He is still the first to be condemned, the primary target of violence, the most "dehumanised", the last to be considered. Certainly he is of less status than women collectively as soon as a monogamous patriarchal structure where every man runs his own household breaks down -- i.e. any society where tournament mating is allowed to creep back in after our attempts to weld humanity to pair-bonding cooperative sexuality fail (in practice, then, any society where females and apex males have freedom to indulge their sexuality). Our society has huge blinkers on about this, but that itself is a symptom. The very idea that the low-status undesirable male is a victim or disadvantaged in any way is received with vicious denial and contempt, even as every other group under the sun who are less than optimal -- right down to transexual furries or whatever -- are scooped up as poor, miserable oppressed righteous types who are added to the power-seeking structure. Your thoughts? Is sexual instinct just so powerful that this contempt for the lower-status male -- the male not sexually attractive to females who have options -- is given priority even over the power-seeking strategy at the core of "bioleninism".

        • The beta male is low status in mating but he could plausibly (unless very dumb) make money and rise up. He's not as loyal as the genetically disadvantaged. And yet nerds and soy-boys tend to be completely leftist most of the time. That women insist on shitting on them is indeed a sign that the sexual instinct is so powerful they can't avoid showing their disgust; but again it is not politically incorrect to do so. Women find also, say, subcontinental men repulsive, but they're not allowed to talk about it.

  • Stephen Fry on national television making an off hand joking about pederasty. @ 1:48 The audience & panel loved it. Just incase anyone was unconvinced that the deep state are especially keen on sexualising young - white working class - English boys.

  • About visible minorities, you imagine that the son will not fool around the Guatemalan maid. Of course he will.

  • 0 pingbacks