Category Archives: Biology

Man’s limitations

We are defined by our biology. Our biology is defined by our genetic blueprint. Our genetic blueprint is adaptable through nurture, but it can never transcend its programming. Maximizing its programming is transcendence. Or, stated differently: an orang-utan can not build a space shuttle and it is stupid and insulting to expect an orang-utan to build a space shuttle.

Similarly, biology means differences between the sexes.

Woman creates and nurtures life. Man builds, conquers and protects the environment in which woman can create and nurture life. Naturally there is some overlap: some women are more masculine, some men are more feminine. But the way the previous sentence is worded tells you the basic principle holds.

Because of these different roles it is clear that women want to be owned by men. Women fight other women to be owned by the highest-status men. Similarly, men want to own women and fight other men over ownership of women.

Owning one or multiple women is not like owning a table. It is also not like owning a dog, although it is more similar to owning a dog than to owning a table. But a woman is neither a dog nor a table; she is a woman. Thus different rules of ownership apply, rules which are hard yet not impossible to explain.

As white men, we have lost ownership over our women. Unfortunately, this is entirely our own fault, for we are our own worst enemy. It was white men who pushed progressivism, white men who pushed feminism, white men who pushed women into the workplace. Emancipation was a tactic for some white men to gain the upper hand over other white men. It was very successful. And women didn’t protest too much, for it is in woman’s nature to shit-test men, and boy, has feminism given women a lot of opportunity to shit-test men.

The white men who illegalized female ownership effectively set small fires to white society in order to more effectively plunder it. Being a cold-hearted logic machine, I can appreciate the effectiveness of this strategy.

Nonetheless these fires are growing into infernos that consume us. Most white men would like to not have a society that is falling apart, thus the desire to stop the inferno. The problem is that for the foreseeable future we are, well, fucked. I realistically expect continued deterioration until the day I die. (This seems to be where reactionary blogosphere diverges from the dissident-right blogosphere: Audacious Epigone points towards Generation Zyklon being a woke beacon of hope. I am skeptical, for I do not see them talking much about reinstating ownership of women, in fact I’m pretty sure they would find it horribly sexist and misogynistic of me to talk like that.)

The problem is that men are limited. We do not think in terms of society, we think in terms of direct proximity. A man can have about 150 meaningful social relations and the only way to scale his status beyond that is to improve the status of those he chooses to have a meaningful relation with, if necessary by switching the people within his Dunbar. Dunbar Dunbar Dunbar. (of course there is variance: introverts have a small Dunbar, extroverts a big Dunbar.) So beyond our Dunbar we are not communicating with each other; we are jockeying for status, showing off our Dunbar.

For instance, take this revealing phrase from a recent Scott Aaronson post:
how can a person read Gower’s blog, or Slate Star Codex, without seeing what I see, which is basically luminous beacons of intellectual honesty and curiosity and clear thought and sparkling prose and charity to dissenting views, shining out far across the darkness of online discourse?’

Regarding the charity-to-dissenting-views part: I do believe Jim is banned from both Slate Star Codex and Scott Aaronson’s blog, while neither Scott is banned from Jim’s blog. So that is a bit hypocritical.

As for the rest: Scott makes a valid point. Which is to say, as far as he is concerned, his part of the blogosphere is a luminous beacon of intellectual honesty. He is simply optimizing his status within that circle. What he says may be cringy, but it is no doubt well-received by Gower and Scott Alexander, who both fit Aaronson’s Dunbar preferences and have a –for blogosphere terms– large fan base. I do the same thing when I flatter Spandrell or Jim. We are all trying to scale our Dunbar. White men in particular are very proficient at this.

This dynamic shows up everywhere.

Movies: Oh you had dinner with Shia Lebeuf? Well I was invited to Leonardo Dicaprio’s yacht. Yeah I used to have an occasional lunch with Weinstein, but that was before all this came out. Never really liked the guy anyway.

TV: Yeah that Jimmy Kimmel man, he really is a funny guy. Oh you do golf with Conan O’ Brian? We should hang out some time.

Politics: You know I had dinner with Podesta and we did some really interesting things. Yeah he and Mark Zuckerberg shoot each other mails, he told me all about it.

YouTube: Man did you check out Idubbbz’s video on Ricegum? Dude even Pewdiepie was in it! Ricegum’s career is over.

Music: wow this collab between Pharell, Katy Perry and Calvin Harris is lit!

Alt-Right: yoo did you check out the beef between Vox and Andrew Anglin? No? Well lemme tell you it was crazy!

Cross-overs: so Justin Bieber invited Adam Sandler and David Spade over for lunch. Guess he wants to be an actor. Well he’s got some competition from Logan Paul — he made an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel!

I could go on and on but I think the point is clear. Dunbars rule the world. So, if you want to save (and in effect, rule) Western civilization you can only do it with a Dunbar that is sufficiently high in status. Not all Dunbars are created equal. In fact, they are horribly unequal. Thus the reactionary assertion that the masses are not so important as they naturally prefer to align themselves with the highest status Dunbars. So if you want power, you want to scale your Dunbar into the ruling elite.

The problem with this is that, as Moldbug hypothesized and Jim asserts, our ruling elite for the largest part is crazy and becoming crazier every day. Observing how even Trump is unable to build sufficiently high-status Dunbars within the ruling elite, this seems true.

So, you need to build a new Dunbar to challenge the existing highest-status Dunbars. Which is hard, very hard. If Trump can’t do it, I doubt you can. Which leaves the next best thing: scale as effectively as you can and wait for the existing highest-status Dunbars to collapse or grow sufficiently weak so that you may usurp them. Which in fact is what everyone already is doing. Good luck.

Advertisements

The Jewish Question

It is common knowledge that all things hip cross the Atlantic from America to Europe, for in the same breath that Europeans hate on American McGloboWorld they bite down on a Big Mac.

Well, there is a new trend blowing across the ocean. It is not a hip trend as in Jake Paul hip, it is more hip as in EDGY AF FAM.¹ What is this new trend?

Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 14.24.21

Why, it is anti-semitism! Yes, the same kind the nazis were into, the same kind babyboomers believe to be the epitome of evil. That anti-semitism. But that was stupid! Why would it be back?

Well, as Nick Krauser once bluntly put it, ‘most genocides in history were merely overreactions against a people who had it coming. That includes the Jews.’ Long story short, Jews are not just a religious tribe, they are also a genetic tribe. And it turns out their genetics predispose them to verbal trickery, phariseeism² and manipulation. Or, in layman’s terms: screw over whitey. Take a closer look at all industries with a bad reputation, you may bet your ass Jews are involved. Porn, banking sector, the media, Hollywood? The Jew never fails to make an appearance.

Perhaps an easy way to understand the nature of Jewish sneakiness is by looking at a few scenes from #1 Jew-beloved director, Mel ‘Kaminsky’ Brooks.

The genius of Brooks’ is two-fold: one, he ridicules white civilisation. Two, he gets whites to watch his movies and think it is funny. I’m sure plenty of babyboomers saw the ‘where the white women at’ scene and laughed out loud thinking how stupid racists are for believing blacks want to rape white women. But as it turns out, a large minority of blacks do want to rape white women. The movie viewer is thus tricked in a style that is typical of Jews.

And whitey is re-learning this. Anti-semitism comes surprisingly natural to us — even with near-uniform propaganda efforts it took only 70 years post-holocaust for the taboo to be broken once again. ‘Gierige Jood’ (Greedy Jew) is a perfectly accepted Dutch expression.

 

So now we understand the origin of this new trend: anti-semitism is simply the rational response of white men looking for a reason to explain the downfall of Western civilisation.

It is the position of this blog that Jews have done a lot of nasty stuff and are still doing a lot of nasty stuff, but that the Jews are not the cause of the downfall. Whitey himself has started the downfall of the West over 200 years ago; the Jews ‘only’ exacerbated the situation. Whites are wolves to one another and nazis pronouncing the sacred holiness of Ze White Race keep glossing over this fact. We whites are at one another’s throat and online roleplaying that we are not is no where near a final solution. The Jew has to be named but should not solely be blamed.

The problem of course is that, as Spandrell once pointed out to me, most contrarians prefer blaming the J00. People want easy answers and blaming the Jew is an easy answer. So I am not sure how that will play out. Fighting anti-semitism holiness spirals is an uphill battle. I laud Jim for his patience in explaining the nuance time after time. Not sure if I have this patience. I will however offer some final notes in Jim’s defence.

Plan Jim advocates for the re-institution of a grand inquisitor. In fact Jim openly solicits for this position. If Jim is secretly a Jew, we would expect the Jews to like his plans, right? Well, let us see what the Jews think of a grand inquisitor…

Seems to me like Jews hate hate hate plan Jim.

 

 


¹ short for ‘edgy as fuck family’ which used to be hip internet slang until every 14-year old started to use it on youtube, now it is only cool if used ironically.

² Religious hypocrisy, which is to say that Jews, in large part descendants from priests, are very good at being holier than thou.

Left vs Right I: etymology

Life is complex, but life is also simple. Dualistic. It seems thinkers of our time have settled on two main terms to describe the divide that splits the modern world: right and left.

Before we get into the theorising let us take a look at the etymology. In their original meanings left and right are instinctive words, yet hard to explain. Your left is simply, on your left. The side of your body where your heart lays. Your right is the opposite side, housing your liver. Left and right are coordinates for navigating your environment, similar to directions on a compass, but more primal.

The origin of the political left and right stems from the French revolution. In 1791 French revolutionaries rewrote the French constitution such that the old legislative body was stripped of its power. In its place came a new body, the Legislative Assembly, in which the revolutionaries enjoyed all the power.

Now, because the Legislative Assembly was brand new, fresh traditions were shaped every other day. On such tradition was the observation that there were two opposing groups in the Assembly: the group on the literal right side favoured a constitutional monarchy, felt things had escalated far enough. The group on the literal left side wanted the king dead, were in favour of more evermore equality and fraternity. Of course the conservatives lost, the Jacobins won and France endured all the lovely perks of having leftists in power.

Screen Shot 2017-07-08 at 12.55.48

So that’s it for origin stories. On to the good stuff. Why is the right/left divide so accurate? Because nature is dualistic. Every organism has 2 choices: to cooperate or to defect. Life in many ways is a never-ending series of prisoner’s dilemmas, a constant choice between working together with others or screwing others over. Eve cooperated with Adam until she defected on him. The choice turns out to be so fundamental to our survival that we’ve come to genetically specialise in one or the other. Rightism is cooperating, leftism is defecting.

Let there be no surprise that leftists categorically deny this label. In their defence, our definition pretty much puts them in a position where we are asking them how long they’ve been beating their wives, so they are in a bad position to defend themselves. But the truth speaks for itself, and the truth shouts that leftists by nature are defectors.

For cuttlefish, there are 2 main mating strategies. The first is to adhere to the mating ritual, which fighting other males for dominance (co-op/co-op). The strongest male gets to mate. This is good for the species, not so much for the weaker male. So many males employ an alternative mating strategy: pose as a female and sneak past the strong males (co-op/defect). If the bluff is successful, the weak male mates. Bad for the species, good for the weak male.

This in a nutshell is leftism vs rightism. The rightist wants to co-operate because he knows he is strong and he has the most to gain with all-around honesty (it is probably correct that the rightist does not care about what is good for civilisation either, that any boon to civilisation is merely a side-effect of his personal preference to play it straight). The leftist wants to defect because he knows he is outmatched in straightforward co-operation. The rightist builds the system, the leftist games the system.

On demographic doom


I. Curb your Pessimism

So the demographics look very depressing. Spandrell has some statistical analyses. So does Audacious Epigone. Whites are reproducing below replacement levels. Muslims are reproducing above replacement levels. Blacks are reproducing explosively above replacement levels. Many blacks and Muslims already live in the West, many more blacks and Muslims are coming to the West. Leftists argue that Muslim and black fertility rate drops once they are 3rd+ generation immigrants, but Jim much more convincingly argues that fertility rate is tied to female emancipation, and blacks and muslims are increasingly wary of female emancipation. Obvious conclusion is obvious: in a couple of decades, whites will be minorities in their own countries.¹

That is depressing.

Yet there is no reason to stay depressed.

The problem with whites overly obsessed with saving the white race is that they are similar to Greenpeace activists wanting to save the panda; if a race on the brink of extinction does not procreate, it is meant to go extinct. That is the simple truth.

We don’t really care about an abstract concept called ‘the white race’. We care about ourselves and our family. We only care about the white race insofar the white race facilitates peace and prosperity for ourselves and our family.

Virtue-signalling that you care about the white race is a lot better than virtue-signalling that you hate the white race, but it is still just virtue signalling. The proof, as always, is in the pudding. How many kids you havin’?

Those with many kids have their genes survive. Those that don’t, don’t. The future belongs to those who show up. Virtue-signal all you want, but in the end a simple head-count of your family suffices. Gnon does not care about the rest.


II. Crunching some numbers
¹ How many decades though? I am both too lazy and distrusting of the statistics to do a thorough analysis. But some quick statistics on the Netherlands show the following:

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 10.41.13

Keep in mind I distrust the statistics. 1 – illegals are not taken into account and 2 – 3rd gen immigrants disappear into the original Dutch pool. So lets add, I don’t know, an additional 6% to immigrants in 2016. Which makes 70% – 30%. Compared to only 87% – 13% in 1996 and likely compared to, what, 95 % – 5% in 1950, the change is enormous.

Now it is non-western immigrants (muslims and blacks) that are the scariest. In 2016 they are up to 12%, but I am pretty sure the illegals are also entirely in that category. So say 18%. More than doubled in 20 years. That is alarming.

Back to the original question: when will Dutch whites be a minority in their own country? Perhaps slightly slower than other European countries. But at the current rate, perhaps not much slower:

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 11.01.13

This is projecting current trends. I assume a growth rate of 180% in 20 years for non-western immigrants. If that trend holds up, whites in Netherlands will be a minority in about 50-60 years. That seems to be the way the cookie is crumbling.


III. PS
By the way, I can’t help but be amazed at the lightning-pace of the transformation. When my grandparents were young, about half as much people were living in the Netherlands than do now. And very little non-Western immigrants. I don’t think their generation realises how things have changed, how things are changing.

Dunbar Philantropy

Apparently there is a drought in East Africa. I know this because the media dedicates a big chunk of time showing images of hungry African kids with sad expressions on their hollow-eyed little faces, followed by a plea to donate money to Giro 555, a Dutch joint venture of NGO’s.

Now I am mildly surprised, because as far as I knew we had already donated billions and billions of dollars to African countries. For instance, Ethiopia, a country afflicted by the current drought, has according to that source received 3.5 billion dollars of developmental aid in 2013 alone, of which 147 million dollars was allocated for water supply. In 1 year! With napkin math I reason that Ethiopians have in 10 years time received 1 billion dollars specifically to prepare for droughts. But fast-forward and today there is a massive drought which Ethiopia apparently stands helpless against. Send more money! You’da thunk development aid would have helped the Africans prepare for exactly the kind of drought they are experiencing right now, but apparently it has not.

This pattern of charity money not doing what it is supposed to is nothing new: even in progressive circles it is accepted as fact that African aid money might as well have been thrown into a black hole. On the surface it seems simple: something bad happens and good white people want to help. But our help does not work. We have an altruism industry working around the clock, but it is completely defective. What is up?

The problem is you can’t go around Dunbar’s number. People are evolutionary wired to care first and foremost about their tribe. This goes for the givers and the receivers of aid. I recall a story of a Doctor Without Borders who trained Africans in Western medicine for a year. When he returned some time later he discovered to his shock no one was using the Western medicine and his trainees were in fact referring the sick to the local Voodoo man. ‘This is how we do’ was the explanation offered, which is of course the same explanation offered shoulder-shruggingly by corrupt warlords who buy cocaine and golden AK47’s with money donated by UNICEF. This is how we do in our tribe.

On the aid giver’s end, our end, dead children on tv are sad because we imagine it happening to us and our tribe. But we lack the wiring to give anything but a superfluous shit about other people’s tribe. While the ad runs we are all sympathy but once the ad is over we simply forget because we have enough worries in our own life.

The reason people care about [insert hip charity] is because people care about status signalling towards other people in their tribe. I am a good person, I care. Do you care as much as I care? This is not to say virtue signalling is by definition bad (for my part Bill Gates really does want to rid the world of malaria), but it is to say that the actual outcome of the aid is secondary to the feelz! invoked by charity status signalling. Essentially charity is people roleplaying that more people belong to their tribe than actually do.

This is why so many Dutch youngsters flock to Africa for a 3-month internship digging waterholes and teaching English to dem keedz, of which the long-term effect is comparable to getting a pig to fly. But that’s ok because the point was never to actually help Africans, the point was to make Dutch youngsters feel good about themselves so they can post pictures with blacks on Facebook and tell people how much they’ve learned being around less privileged people. The East African Drought Drive is simply the watered down version of this.

So you could make the case that charity is inherently stupid: the idea of charity is to do something good for people outside your tribe, but Dunbar philantrophy tells us you are wired to care only if it benefits your standing within your tribe.

Spiritual Exhaustion

So my post on the spiritual state of West Europe hit a nerve even though it’s bad manners to give away what post gets a lot of pageviews since it reveals other posts do shitty and it is best to fake it ’till you make it but then again people tell me autism is our most powerful weapon so I figure I might as well just spew out an autistic stream of consciousness and get it out of my system anyway. Anyway.

Let’s riff on this theme of spiritual exhaustion.

Human life follows rules of nature which is to say we live within the confines of Gnon’s laws. Evolution turns out to play a major role. Now Darwin’s ideas of evolution states that the fittest shall survive. What is the fittest? For mankind the fittest mostly boiled down to the tribe that was best at smashing to pulp the skulls of other tribes. So the ability to outsmart and outsmash your enemy has been heavily selected for.

An crucial feature of this is cooperation. The story of evolution seems to me the story of endless prisoner’s dilemma simulations: to cooperate or not to cooperate, that is the question. From Gnon’s perspective there is no moral reason whatsoever to cooperate, but he does seem to favour cooperation for two main reasons:

  1. A team can accomplish things an individual could have never done alone. 10 monkeys kill 1 monkey no problem.
  2. If you are working together you are not slicing open each others throat which by itself is a net gain.

So the story of mankind’s evolution is the story of the evolution of cooperation. Not because cooperation was morally superior, just because it worked so well. So how exactly did nature instil this sense of automatic cooperation? Religion.

Religion gives a sense of identity, gives a sense of personal belonging within the larger world. I have faith, therefore I am. All societies are religious and the further you go back in time the cruder a society’s religion was. Faith is shared within the tribe, that is the entire point of it. Better to collectively sacrifice a child to the gods than to have no collective rituals at all, for lack of cohesion points to lack of cooperation and lack of cooperation leads to paranoia as to whether your neighbor plans to smash your skull in which means you might just be better of pre-emptively smashing in his skull.

So we are wired for religion, not because of some mysterious supernatural force but because being plugged into the same superorganism gives all the organisms belonging to that superorganism an evolutionary edge. This is why, when viewed from a skyscraper, people function like ant colonies, why people in groups so easily tune into a collective consciousness. Ask anyone who has performed for a large group. Our brains are wired for collective experiences of faith. This is why Moldbug’s cladistic ordering of strands of Christianity makes so much sense: religions evolve in similar patterns to, say, Darwin’s finches.

The problem of course is that evolutionary faith works retroactively: first comes the evolutionary pressure, second comes the religious adaptation. From historical example it seems that a good adaptation (e.g. the teachings of an excellent prophet) may guide a superorganism for several hundred years before the evolutionary pressures have changed in such a way that the prophet’s teachings  have grown obsolete, or worse, counterproductive. For instance, Jesus’ teachings of universal love made the Anglo-Saxon unconditionally altruistic, but modernity’s cheap transport and prog-sponsored mass immigration makes unconditional altruism suicidal. 

Which leads to another important point: modern superorganisms are messy. Like, incredibly messy. Your average modern citizen has to deal with co-workers, family, friends, strangers, fellow countrymen, foreigners, people on tv and the entire internet! Dunbar’s number, fukdat’s number. The fact that a country like the Netherlands or the US even has a functioning sense of identity is testament to the immense strength of our religious wiring. But our faith is strained and sick.

I am cautious with statements such as that last one because it is easy to idealise the past which we do not really know. Perhaps faith has always been strained and sick and is it really just the way things work. But I do not believe that. Sometimes I read old books and I read a sense of serenity and belonging that modernity just lacks.

Socrates said that beauty is an object fulfilling its function. I maintain that the function of religion within a superorganism is to elevate its participating humans to a higher level of functioning, e.g. make it so that total level of functioning is higher than the sum of its individual components. Or, in simpler terms: that attending church adds to the quality of your life. Seems to me that modernity has turned religion into its bitch. Attending the cathedral clearly lowers the quality of your life. But to stop attending the cathedral is to stop cooperating with the grandest superorganism in the history of mankind: the Grand Empire of the West. All our religious instincts tell us abandoning such a powerful superorganism is a very dangerous idea.

This is why Trump, besides being an ironclad leader, is also a timely prophet: he gives the average American permission to dump the worst strands of leftist religion. This is also why West Europe finds itself in deep shit: we have codified leftist religion deeply in our written laws specifically to prevent counter-prophets like Trump from rising to power. We take our ‘checks and balances’ very serious. So we have invested too much skin in the game to come to our senses, at least not until things deteriorate to the arbitrary point where your average West European no longer dares to travel by public transport (or to travel at all).