Saturday, June 2, 2012 78 Comments

Prussifornia

On Valencia Street I met a man
Whose hair announced the age; an age
Of wheelchair bums and whitey dreads,
Winy espressos and knobbed dildoes,
Watched over by caring helicopters;
Ecco San Francisco, this first
Decade of a crackborn millennium;
To any head that's screwed on tight,
Normal; to a loose-necked remnant
Ill-fastened to the present, an
Amazing sight - but when so epic
As this dude's head? Brown humongous
Broccoli dreads with daikon dreams,
Surely shoulder-length or more, yet
Pinned forward over - a baseball cap -
Picture it, dear reader, as you dare;
Observe that to the careless observer
This sprout, this growth much-loved
And deeply foul, has clearly thrust
Its way, a daisy through concrete, through
The crown of the equally foul cap... at
This moment the fart of a big truck
Rang in my mindless ear, and I recalled
The words of Mrs. Kate Crane Gartz -
Yes, of the famous plumbing Cranes -
In a letter to the Los Angeles Record
In 1923; "California," she wrote,
"Is called the Prussia of America,
The most reactionary of the states;
I would change that reputation
To the MOST PROGRESSIVE, in fact
The leader; to show the world we
Have something besides our scenery,
That we have a heart and soul." Oh!
Mrs. Gartz! I have a California,
Heart and soul both slightly used,
For you; yours I'll take in trade.
Does scenery mean too much to me?

78 Comments:

Anonymous Myrmecodon said...

Guess who's back.

June 2, 2012 at 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Thrasymachus said...

Reminds me of "Birches". I can't quite picture it but these growths seem conquered in this way. If only we could climb out of these woods and swing back to an earlier time.......

June 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM  
Anonymous spandrell said...

Guess I must say hi.

June 2, 2012 at 6:35 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Mordecai Melvindichter has at last emerged from underneath his writhing mound of Colombian prostitutes. No doubt he's a bit more moist and humid than usual, but any man in Melvindichter's enviable position would be that way too.

June 2, 2012 at 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great imagery. Echoes of Breitbart's statement that because the weather is still good, people in California think they are still living in the same state as before, but in fact the state has changed, through Progressive malfeasance, so as to be absolutely unrecognizable to anyone who lived in it 50 years ago: this is why so many are packing up and leaving for the dusty, dry deserts of Nevada and Arizona, where the weather sucks but Prussianism is slightly less prevalent.
I think this poetry form of Mencius' tells it better.

June 2, 2012 at 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Robert Citrus said...

Well, national bolsheviks are hip
They really dig that Limonov
And the kar sevaks made their sangh pranaam
When the Agni-V took off

The Guoanbu keeps Falun kids off the green Zhongnanhai lawn
And the EU night is ending in the light
Of a brand new Golden Dawn

I wish they all could be Prussifornia...

June 3, 2012 at 12:44 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Welcome back.

June 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

http://debs.indstate.edu/c891p3_1923.pdf

June 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whose hair announced the age; an age Of wheelchair bums and whitey dreads, Winy espressos and knobbed dildoes,

What about of guys wearing earrings? Earrings on their left ears?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aa2UJX_EpQ

June 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM  
Anonymous James_G said...

What happened to "Boas-Myrdalism: a mainstream conspiracy theory"? Sounds interesting. Anyway:

>Does scenery mean too much to me?

Of course, Mrs. Gartz's "heart and soul" are of dubious value. I'm reminded of the single element of the Crossman Diaries that I found most disturbing, an offhand remark about how Barbara Castle was fervent and emotional about some cause to the point of being difficult to reason with.

Contrast that with Tassano's description of the rare and endangered upper class sensibility:

"Have you ever met any upper-class people? I do not mean buffoons, like the Marquess of Bath. They used to be found in the upper echelons of the top banks and oil companies. Contrary to the popular image of them, as churned out by all cultural channels nowadays, they are not as a rule sadistic and ruthless, at least no more than the average person, nor are they “nice but dim”. What they do tend to exhibit is a particular kind of psychology which is difficult to define but which, around here, we call “impersonal”. This term can be misunderstood, since it is certainly not meant to imply saintliness or even lack of self-interest. An ability to see the bigger picture, enlightened self-interest, cynicism, not insisting too much on superficial rationality of a kind that can easily be proved to others, willingness to back hunches — these are some of the possible features, but it is not a foolproof description. The easiest way to understand it is to see it in action."

Apart from expressing cynicism towards Mrs. Gartz, Moldbug's concluding line could also double as a sincere question to his audience: are the consequences of Universalism substantially evil, or merely aesthetically displeasing?

Disorder, dysgenics and decivilisation are all despicably ugly things - but are these problems important enough to merit a hazardous "reboot" of the US government, or but unfortunate changes in the scenery to be suffered with a resigned grimace?

June 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about of guys wearing earrings? Earrings on their left ears?

I think you mean right ear. He has an earring on his right ear. Which is supposed to be a gay thing.

June 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@James G -

I think this commenter illustrates a salient point regarding the loss of an "upper class" in modern society. Moldbug is at heart a Burkean. Politics - and power - is too important a job to be left to amateurs. The problem with the Brahmin-dominated civil service bureaucracy is not that they are careerists, but that they do not understand the political forces which actually direct the ship of state. They are small-picture people. Each thinks her own section of the deck is the only one that matters. The problem with modern politicians is that they are all amateurs - even the 30-year Senators. They confuse campaigning with rule. Modern democrat-republican voters further this idiocy in assuming that being able to run a campaign proves a candidates political mettle. The idea is absurd. Just because you can swim out to the boat doesn't mean you know how to steer her. Mencius' royalism/cameralism is simply a means of putting an professional in power. No King or WashCorp CEO ever has absolute power: he merely has absolute legitimacy so long as he is able to carefully steer the ship of state. Like any complicated task, to do so effectively takes skill, and skill takes practice, and probably some raw talent. Even at the level of a statesman, a true politician a statesman a la Metternich - bred and educated for the job, would eat these modern fops for breakfast. Sadly, the modern world considers the political process too sacred to ever let a professional statesman anywhere near politics. Yet all societies have aristocracies: some merely have aristocracies which are far less useful than others. China is attempting to recreate a modern aristocratic bureaucracy: time will tell if the attempt can succeed while retaining the vestiges of China's progressive, Leninist political model. (I am not lauding the Chinese model: effective rule is simply effective, this does not make it ethically or morally sound.) I would say the only Western entity with anything approaching professional statesmen is the Vatican - which, absent Vatican II which is generally ignored wherever possible, has been of course busily avoiding modernization for the past 600 years or so.

June 4, 2012 at 12:44 AM  
Blogger vanderleun said...

All watched over by machines of loving grace...

June 4, 2012 at 3:58 PM  
Blogger Aaron Davies said...

I would assume Lichtenstein, given the willingness of its populace to actually vote more power to the monarchy, must also have at least two professional statesmen.

June 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM  
Anonymous James_G said...

Someone asked me to elaborate on Barbara Castle. Here is the excerpt I vaguely recalled:

Page 453:

"As a result of the Rhodesian executions [the execution of three African resistance leaders, despite the Queen having officially commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on the advice of the British Government] we were bound to have a speech from Barbara Castle in Cabinet demanding that we should think again about military sanctions. But nobody else was prepared to listen. George Brown, Denis Healey, George Thomson, Tony Crosland and Roy Jenkins all want to damp this down because they see the danger of committing ourselves any further. If only Harold Wilson shared Barbara's mood of excitement. His new idea was an all-party resolution to be drafted by the Lord Chancellor. We discussed this and agreed to it."

Crossman appears to endorse Castle's idea, but whatever its merits what I find disturbing is her evidently emotional, "excited" reason for taking this stance. She was advocating a policy that could have led to serious escalation of an international dispute, on the basis of overwhelming feelings rather than rational, detached judgement.

I also located another couple of relevant entries:

From Page 563 onwards: "We [Crossman and Barbara] had a long and arduous struggle [regarding the merits of her White Paper on strikes] and she thought I was just sabotaging and filibustering. To some extent it's fair to say I was. (Judith told me that when she got into the room she overheard Barbara saying to the others, 'My God, a colleague rewriting a White Paper for another colleague. By jove, when he has another White Paper, what won't I do to him.' [...])

Barbara got pretty hysterical in the course of the afternoon and the Committee got more and more angry with me, saying I was unreasonable, until slowly it at last began to dawn on them that they had been misled. [...]

I found a big banner headline in the Guardian, where Ian Aitken had a very accurate story that Barbara and I are at loggerheads and that I am pleading for green edges to her White Paper.

I wondered uneasily whether this would have upset Barbara and certainly she was very cross this morning when we settled down at 10.15 to continue the Committee work on her White Paper. In Cabinet I had said, half-jokingly, that if she didn't have a Ministerial Committee before the White Paper she should jolly well have one after it and this was what she was getting. It was our third meeting and she was still ferociously angry at the idea that any Cabinet colleague should submit her to this indignity."

Page 607: "Just as I got upstairs Judith came in, looking very grey and seeming terribly upset about Bob Mellish [the new Chief Whip, replacing John Silkin]. Next was Barbara, furiously angry at what Harold had done, taking it as a personal insult. I took her out to dinner and she fumed. After all, he had talked to us for an hour this morning and given us the impression that he was just thinking about having a new Chief Whip and then, under her nose, he swept John Silkin away and put in Bob Mellish, a bête noire of Barbara's, without consulting her and in the middle of her own negotiations with John about the conduct of her Industrial Relations Bill. She said it was intolerable, she would never forgive Harold, she was going to destroy him and finally I advised her to write him a really stinking letter."

This person was a very senior politician in the British Government - and was clearly a hysterical, irresponsible woman whom on this evidence one wouldn't trust to run a school fête, let alone a nuclear-armed first world country. Clearly, we ought to be thankful for the gradual relegation of elected politicians to merely "dignified" status within the constitution.

Although Ms. Castle seems particularly egregious, the rest of the Cabinet Ministers portrayed in the Crossman Diaries aren't much better. The book paints a very sordid picture of democratic politics.

June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM  
Anonymous James_G said...

Those page numbers are from my rapidly disintegrating condensed version of the diaries, by the way.

June 5, 2012 at 9:24 AM  
Anonymous mlr said...

Wow, did any of you actually watch the youtube link by Anon@2:33? ... It's a young Mencius!

June 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah. A poem always foreshadows a juicy essay.

Gilbert Pinfold.

June 6, 2012 at 12:21 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

I shudder to think what a reading of mine from '97 would be like. '98 I'll take but a lot happened that year.

I wonder what ol' CY is up to (besides not writing for UR).

June 6, 2012 at 7:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a young Mencius!

Note the earring on his right ear.

June 6, 2012 at 11:35 PM  
Anonymous Wilhelm Durand said...

Your blogger was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force; he ceased to be Curtis Yarvin, and became Mencius Moldbug...

June 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what ol' CY is up to (besides not writing for UR).

The earring on the right ear should give you a clue.

June 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Stirner said...

Commenter James G has started up a new Reactionary blog.

Nice material so far.

http://james-g.com/

June 7, 2012 at 8:30 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Since the Supreme Leader has returned in glory, I'd like to bring something to the attention of his eminence.

I'd like to make him aware of the fact that the "racialist" community doesn't can't explain why race is important because they are wedded to a racialist ideology, "Ethnic Genetic Intersts" that is compatible with neither Darwinism nor Galtinism.

Per EGI, race is important because races are similar.

A "Genetic Similarity" justification for racial importance is, of course, contrary to Darwinian evolution because retaining similarity defeats the purpose of Darwinism. The purpose of Darwinism is beneficially adaptating traits and abilities to better suit one's environment, not cloning schlubs that look exactly like you.

If "Genetic Similarity" were the purpose of Darwinian evolution, then sexual evolution would not have come into existence because sexual evolution allows for new trait/ability combinations to come into existence than asexual reproduction does.

Race is, therefore, important because the races have developed *mental profiles that make them more suitable for building certain types of societies than others, and not because of "Genetic Similarity.

Perhaps the reason white racialism is going nowhere in the US is because the vaunted racialists can't explain why race is important without contradicting the fundamental purpose of Darwinism as Darwin (and Galton) understood it.

* And mental characteristics are what the race debate revolves around because nobody disputes races have different physical adaptations such as height, skin color, body shape, musculature, susceptibility or immunity to particular diseases, etc, etc.

June 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

UJ, if you think evolution has a purpose, you don't understand evolution.

June 9, 2012 at 12:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone been following the Golden Dawn party in Greece?

June 9, 2012 at 12:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TUJ doesn't understand evolution, Darwinism, EGI, etc.

And he's repeating the lame critique of EGI that was made at GNXP years ago, and that was demolished at Majority Rights.

June 9, 2012 at 1:17 AM  
Anonymous Clark said...

The Undiscovered Jew is a mischling faggot.

June 9, 2012 at 2:32 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

UJ, if you think evolution has a purpose,

I'm aware of that, I just don't want to get into another evolutionist-creationist flamewar about "teleology".

June 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

TUJ doesn't understand evolution, Darwinism, EGI, etc.

Darwin made it pretty clear evolution involves acquiring adaptations/abilities that allow for better survival in certain environments.

The whole reason sexual reproduction came into existence was to create more beneficent trait combinations in an organism's offspring, and not to produce "genetic similarity".

If "similarity" were the objective of natural selection, then why didn't reproduction remain asexual? Because what offspring could be more "genetically similar" to another biological organism than an asexually generated clone?

And he's repeating the lame critique of EGI that was made at GNXP years ago, and that was demolished at Majority Rights.

Since when is Majority Rights a better repository for evolutionary theory than Charles Darwin?

Darwin said natural selection was important because different species over time developed differing adaptations to different environments.

Retaining "Genetic Similarity" is therefore anti-Darwininian because adaptations to the environment is supposed to cause changes in a species.

June 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

This is some racialist movement we've got here where the mighty racial tribalists/paleoconservatives/altrighters/whatever can't articulate why race is important without contradicting evolutionary theory as Charles Darwin himself understood it.

June 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Undiscovered Jewboy doesn't understand Darwin.

He also apparently doesn't understand that Darwin wasn't right about everything and that he wasn't some sort of infallible rabbi.

June 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

UJ, you say you understand that evolution does not have a purpose, but in the very next comment you mention natural selection's "objective." I understand that it's very hard to get away from intentional language when talking about evolution, but while it's a perfectly reasonable shorthand when talking about a gene, or an organism, or an adaptation, it's ridiculous to talk about the purpose of evolution as a whole. By the way, I am definitely not a creationist.

Anyway, I don't know much about EGI, but I am familiar with kin selection, which does involve genetic similarity. The likely influence of haplodiploidy on the development of eusociality in the hymenoptera is a classic example of this powerful idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplodiploid_sex-determination_system

Haplodiploidy makes female bees, ants, and wasps share 75% of their genes on average with their female siblings, rather than 50%. It can't be a coincidence most of our examples of insect eusociality, and all the examples with an entirely female sterile caste, come from haplodiploid organisms.

What about sexual reproduction, you say? Well, if you can produce twice as many descendants by mixing your genes 50-50 with something else's, then it's worth it (there's that useful shorthand I mentioned). Since you probably already share a lot of genes with anything you can reproduce with, it should be even easier to get to a point where sexual reproduction is a useful strategy. Of course, taking a small step back from sex seems to have worked out very nicely for the hymenoptera, and there are plenty of successful asexual organisms, so YMMV.

Like I said, I know next to nothing about EGI, but your critique of it is obviously bunk. For a better one, check out gnxp:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003501.html
part 2:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003504.html

June 10, 2012 at 4:32 AM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

UJ, you say you understand that evolution does not have a purpose, but in the very next comment you mention natural selection's "objective." I understand that it's very hard to get away from intentional language when talking about evolution, but while it's a perfectly reasonable shorthand when talking about a gene, or an organism, or an adaptation, it's ridiculous to talk about the purpose of evolution as a whole. By the way, I am definitely not a creationist.

Anyway, I don't know much about EGI, but I am familiar with kin selection, which does involve genetic similarity. The likely influence of haplodiploidy on the development of eusociality in the hymenoptera is a classic example of this powerful idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplodiploid_sex-determination_system

Haplodiploidy makes female bees, ants, and wasps share 75% of their genes on average with their female siblings, rather than 50%. It can't be a coincidence most of our examples of insect eusociality, and all the examples with an entirely female sterile caste, come from haplodiploid organisms.

What about sexual reproduction, you say? Well, if you can produce twice as many descendants by mixing your genes 50-50 with something else's, then it's worth it (there's that useful shorthand I mentioned). Since you probably already share a lot of genes with anything you can reproduce with, it should be even easier to get to a point where sexual reproduction is a useful strategy. Of course, taking a small step back from sex seems to have worked out very nicely for the hymenoptera, and there are plenty of successful asexual organisms, so YMMV.

Like I said, I know next to nothing about EGI, but your critique of it is obviously bunk. For a better one, check out gnxp:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003501.html
part 2:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003504.html

June 10, 2012 at 4:33 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> This is some racialist movement we've got here

I've got to agree, it really is pretty amazing all in all. Your outstanding enthusiasm is noted Sir, with a lofty commendation.

Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that we have decided on an Abrahamic-style heterosexual ideal for the neo-racist vanguard.

I salute your efforts to impose severe racism on the entire United States from coast to coast.

June 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Mencius Moldbug un-
Flinchingly chronicles
California's decay
In unmetrical verse:

Egalitarian
Social experiments
Making the place become
Dreadful, or worse.

June 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

UJ, you say you understand that evolution does not have a purpose, but in the very next comment you mention natural selection's "objective." I understand that it's very hard to get away from intentional language when talking about evolution, but while it's a perfectly reasonable shorthand when talking about a gene, or an organism, or an adaptation,

Organisms and adaptations don't have a purpose in a materialistic universe either.

it's ridiculous to talk about the purpose of evolution as a whole.

Only if you're obtuse and didn't understand I was using "shorthand" when I talked about evolution's "purpose"...

Anyway, I don't know much about EGI, but I am familiar with kin selection, which does involve genetic similarity.

Group selection is not the same as kin selection because group selection imposes too high a fitness penalty on an organism's offspring to mathematically work in an actual environment.

Basically, kin selection works mathematically because kin selection is mathematically more optimal because it kin selection does not require dividing resources as severely as group selection does.

For example, under a kin selection strategy of only helping your immediate family, a father who evenly divides his $100 million fortune with his four children would be enhancing his own children's reproductive fitness more than he would under a "group selection" strategy where he divides his fortune evenly divides his fortune among 10,000 ethnically similar neighborhood children.

What about sexual reproduction, you say? Well, if you can produce twice as many descendants by mixing your genes 50-50 with something else's, then it's worth it

According to evolutionary bioligist, neither sexual reproduction nor Haplodiploid sex-determination make sense from a genetic similarity perspective.

The reason sexual reproduction came into existence is actually a mystery to evolutionary scientists. But what they do agree upon is that sexual reproduction would not exist under an environment that favored genetic similarity because an asexually generated clone is always more similar than offspring which carries only 50% (or 75%) of one's genes.

June 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Like I said, I know next to nothing about EGI, but your critique of it is obviously bunk. For a better one, check out gnxp:

Did you even read the links before you posted them?

Everything David B wrote is consistent with my rejection of Salterian EGI justified race realism in favor of Darwinian trait/adaptation/characteristic/ability justified race realism:

1) EGI (as explained by Salter himself) doesn't explain WHY race is important:

Salter’s concept of 'genetic interests' is an attempt to base individual interests on the metaphorical 'interest' of genes. I am unable to attach any intelligible meaning to most of what he says about it. No doubt he is right to say that 'the process of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence', but to leap from this (which is a statement of fact) to the claim that 'genetic continuity is the ultimate interest of all life' seems to me mere gibberish. 'Life' doesn’t have an 'interest', any more than water has an 'interest' in flowing downhill. And even if 'life' or 'genes' did have an 'interest', so what? Why should we as individuals put the interest of our genes before our personal wants and needs, or even give it any weight at all? Salter does recognise the 'so what?' objection, but his answer to it is just the same old flapdoodle about genes as 'fundamental' to our existence. Ultimately, Salter's attitude towards the genes is more mystical than scientific.

2) Genetic similarity defeats the purpose of both eugenics and "Natural/Old Fashioned" Darwinian eugenics AKA traditional Darwinian sexual reproduction because the purpose of Darwinian evolution is to enhance characteristics in a population to ensure survival:

Secondly, Salter’s doctrine is profoundly anti-eugenic. For Salter, it is in the interest of an individual to preserve and promote the gene frequencies of his own ethnic group, whether the existing gene frequency is good, bad or indifferent, as judged by qualitative criteria. So, for example, it is in the interest of American blacks to promote their own gene frequencies against those of American whites, even if in some respects it would be better for blacks themselves to change those gene frequencies. The doctrine of genetic interests is inherently backward-looking and conservative. In contrast, the eugenic position is that we are able to make value judgements about what characteristics are desirable (such as health, intelligence, and beauty) and undesirable (such as stupidity, mental illness, and physical disabilities) and then to take reproductive decisions based on those judgements.

June 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

He also apparently doesn't understand that Darwin wasn't right about everything and that he wasn't some sort of infallible rabbi.

So now, in an effort to salvage Salterism's incoherent and logically anti-evolutionary and anti-eugenic reason for racialism, the Salterians have descended to comparing Holy Charles Darwin to a filthy Jewish rabbi

June 13, 2012 at 9:19 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

TUJ doesn't understand evolution, Darwinism, EGI, etc.

On the contrary. It is the Salterians (including Salter himself) who not only don't understand Darwinism, but don't understand EGI either.

When the racialists comment about some race related story in the news, they are actually making their racialist points in DARWINIAN terms, not EGI terms.

For instance, when there is a post on black violence, the EGIers make comments about races importance on Darwinian terms, ie, they comment about mental TRAITS that differ between races, such as black propensity to violence, low black future time orientation, and low intelligence.

Violence, poor planning, and intelligence are TRAIT issues, not EGI/Similarity issues.

June 13, 2012 at 9:23 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The CORRECT reason race is important (according to Saint Darwin, not Frank Salter) is because the races have different mean psychological* abilities and characteristics.

Because Western culture is based on white cognitive characteristics, Western culture is race based because the culture and character of every culture is a reflection of the inherent characteristics and adaptations of different races.

Since Western culture depends on white abilities, Western culture is directly linked to the success of the white race, not the non-white races.

Different races require their abilities be governed under differing cultural systems in order to thrive because their traits were selected to thrive under different cultural environments.

Because culture is directly tied to race (from the perspective of Saint Darwin) all immigration to all white nations should be exclusively be reserved to whites only applicants because white cognitive traits are needed to make a white nation successful because those cognitive traits are more adapted for a white social environment.

Culture = How a country's societal organization utilizes the psychological traits of it's population.

Race = a population with particular mean psychological abilities, psychological characteristics, and psychological traits.

* Note that the issue over race revolves around psychological abilities because nobody disputes the races have differencing physical characteristics such as susceptibility to certain diseases.

June 13, 2012 at 9:32 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

In addition to be ignorant of Darwinism (an actual science), the paleocons/WNs are also laughably ignorant of Hitlerian pseudo-scientific racial theory and political propaganda in a number of ways.

To get a completely unbiased and truthful analysis of Hitler's crackpot racial propaganda one must turn to perfectly Jew-neutral historical references such as our host, Mordecai Melvindichter.

June 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

UJ, I guess I'm obtuse; it's not obvious to me at all how you are using purpose as a shorthand when talking about evolution as whole. What exactly do you mean?

June 14, 2012 at 2:54 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

UJ, I guess I'm obtuse; it's not obvious to me at all how you are using purpose as a shorthand about evolution

I was using the word "purpose" as a way to express the results of evolution, while acknowledging evolution doesn't have an intent or objective as the word purpose suggests evolution possesses.

June 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Hungarian Right has the right idea:

"Hungarian far-right politician certified as ‘free of Jewish and Roma’ genes."

http://www.nature.com/news/genome-test-slammed-for-assessing-racial-purity-1.10809

June 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Cunt said...

I was using the word "purpose" as a way to express the results of chance, while acknowledging chance doesn't have an intent or objective as the word purpose suggests chance possesses.

Okay. What I wrote above is asinine but it put a smile across my face. Oh well. That said, the word "purpose" suggests nothing about evolution or anything about what it may or may not possess and as such everything after the word 'objective' is total nonsense.

June 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Okay. What I wrote above is asinine but it put a smile across my face.

It's not as asinine as Salter's claim that genes, life, and genetic continuity have "interests" :

No doubt he is right to say that 'the process of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence', but to leap from this (which is a statement of fact) to the claim that 'genetic continuity is the ultimate interest of all life' seems to me mere gibberish. 'Life' doesn’t have an 'interest', any more than water has an 'interest' in flowing downhill.

June 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

In addition to being unable to argue coherently in favor of white supremacy, Hitler's few (but noisy) remaining loyalists have an aesthetic vision of a successor ideology to Nazism that is a pale shadow of the actual political Nazism of history.

The aesthetic impression the paleoconservatives and WNs use when describing a post-Nazism would never have made it out of the drawing room of the Reich Chancellery. Some examples:

Take the racialist embrace of the word "Tribalism" to describe their ideal nation state and compare that embrace to what actual Nazi political apparatchiks made of the term.

According to both Hitlerian and non-Hitlerian archeologists in the pre-WWII era, tribalism is an inferior form of civilization that the European peoples had evolved beyond.

Pro-Hitler archeologists certainly would not have been caught dead using the "Tribalism" to describe Hitler's vision of an Aryan Reich. If anyone were foolish enough to go to Goebbels and suggest Reich 3.0 be advertised as a "Tribal" state, Goebbels would have promptly made a phone call to the Abwehr's front desk to "remove" such an incompetent from Goebbels residence.

June 15, 2012 at 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cont.

"Salter’s views are not “anti-eugenic”, and the Huntington’s example is vulgar and absurd. Salter openly and clearly states (Section 4d, page 89) that it would be adaptive, in a net sense for the entire distinctive genome, for maladaptive alleles to be sacrificed. A quote:-

'Those dysfunctional alleles no longer serve the interests of the majority of the genes compromising the genome and thus the individual’s genetic interests would be preserved or increased by substitution of maladaptive alleles.'

After that, for anyone to assert that Salter’s position in any way implies that genes for fatal diseases need to be preserved is the height of mendacity."

"In summary, I see points 3 and 5 as gross distortions of Salter’s openly stated views. Essentially David lifts from Salter’s book the possible objections, but neglects to give Salter’s answers. These distortions are a plain warning sign to third parties NOT to depend on GNXP for honest analyses of Salterism."

June 16, 2012 at 1:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The lame criticisms of Salter and EGI from GNXP were thoroughly debunked at Majority Rights.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_defense_of_frank_salters_to_defense_of_us/

"David’s assertion about the relative non-importance of human genetic variation is an opinion, which mirrors the “we are all the same” arguments of race-deniers. Salter deals with this in section 4e of his book (pages 89-93). Given that genetic information is arraigned in a hierarchical fashion, with small changes in control genes and promoter/enhancer regions having significant downstream effects on total gene expression and resultant phenotypes (on which selection operates), the “differences are too small” argument falls flat. Ironically, many of the non-political posts in GNXP’s own archives underline the importance of human genetic variation and thus contradict David’s assertions of the universalist genetic identity of humanity. The idea that we are all essentially clones of each other is undermined by new data that shows variation between individuals (the Nature Genetics paper described below concentrates on groups, btw). The “we are 99.9% the same” commentaries may soon become undermined by reality. Does David deny that individuals belonging to the same population group have more common/recent ancestors than persons belonging to different groups and thus share more distinctive gene frequencies?

Of interest as well as Salter’s point (page 91) that the politically-correct minimization of human genetic variation is an inversion of scientific reasoning, in that it attempts to obscure rather than “explain and predict facts” such as gene-caused phenotypic differences between population groups. If human biodiversity results from that genetic variation which David says is so small, then this stresses rather than diminishes the importance of these small differences. In addition, genetic interests are relative and even siblings - whose genetic differences are small compared to those that characterize population groups - have differences in interests (“sibling rivalry”). Furthermore, genetic interests are the product of the extent of relative genetic variation multiplied by the numbers of people involved. The genetic interest inherent in ethnies is very large because of population size."

"Salter clearly states in his book (page 95) that it is only distinctive genes [frequencies] that are important (not total genetic similarity). Harpending also makes this point in his onion analogy in the Appendix (page 327). Genetic variation that is randomly distributed among populations does not constitute ethnic genetic interest because the gene (and gene sequence) frequencies remain the same regardless of the outcome of ethnic competition. Thus, it is not overall genetic similarity that is the point per se, but distinctive genetic information, in a relative sense."

June 16, 2012 at 1:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comment at 1:26 AM should follow the one at 1:50 AM.

June 16, 2012 at 1:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jared Taylor gave a favorable review of Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/http_majorityrightscom_indexphp_hollis_third_post

The famous biologist at Harvard, Edward O. Wilson, also favorably reviewed the book and said that "On Genetic Interests is a fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans."

June 16, 2012 at 1:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/salter_strawmen_and_a_box_of_matches/

"Here and there one finds some absurd, strawman fallacies of genetic similarity and some absurd, strawman representations of Salter’s work being promoted. So with this post I am seeking to correct any misunderstandings arising from these.

The genetic interests that a given group has as a group is that genetic information that distinguishes it from other groups. Genetic information that is found randomly distributed among all humans may be a genetic interest at the human/non-human level (dependent upon whether it is species-distinctive) - but it is not relevant genetic interest for intra-human, inter-population comparisons.

The same principle applies for ANY evaluation of genetic interest. Since genetic interest is a relative concept, genetic interest at each and any level of comparison is based only on that genetic information that is distinctive between the groups being compared - eg, family vs ethny, ethny vs humanity, humanity vs mammals, etc. Put another way, genetic information found in all groups cannot be a part of a genetic interest of one groups vs another!!!

If this still isn’t crystal clear see pages 47 and 95 of Salter’s book where, of course, the job is done so much better than I can do it.

It is also worth noting my previous post on mouse genetics - compared to humans, mice are ~99% similar genetically, with a ~80% one-to-one correspondence of genes, and a ~40% correspondence of genetic structure. And yet, a mouse litter is not a greater genetic interest to a human than is another human. The similarity of mice to humans is not distinctive at the mammalian level."

June 16, 2012 at 2:05 AM  
Anonymous 99% of this blog's readers said...

Memo to the people talking about "EGI": nobody gives a damn. Please stop polluting this site with your irrelevant, repetitive boilerplate. You are worse than the Chinese spam. Go and crawl back into your holes.

June 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Anonymous, Salterism fails because it's internally contradictory and because he can't explain why distinctive genes are important to race relations, whereas Darwin did.

Frank Salter is pushing two arguments founded on genetic similarity:

1) Members of the same ethnic group have an interest and civilization obligation to take resources from their own immediate family members (whom they are most related to) and share them with members of their same ethnic group (whom they are somewhat less related to).

2) The interests of an ethnic group and the obligation to extend resources from one's family to a more distantly related family either completely or almost completely end beyond their own ethnic group because they share relatively more distinctive gene frequencies with their own ethnic group than they do with other ethnic groups.

The fundamental problem with Salter is that neither of these arguments can be justified on grounds of genetic similarity.

Basically, if we consider things only through the lens of genetic similarity, if your family is more related to you than non-family members of your own ethnic group, then why shouldn't one's family level genetic interests and obligations trump your ethnic level genetic interests and obligations and lead one to not give any resources at all to anyone outside your immediate family?

For instance, as far as genetic similarity is concerned, an English father with four children who wants to divide a $100 million fortune would have his genetic interests better served by splitting his fortune among his four children rather than splitting it with other English families because his immediate family members would benefit more by having those financial resources entirely devoted to them and not divided with other Englishmen.

Likewise, if there is an ethnic level genetic interest and obligation for this English father to extend resources beyond the family level because he shares distinct genes with other Englishmen (but relatively less than he does with his own family), then why should genetic interests stop ONLY at the ethnic level?

From the perspective of genetic similarity, isn't there a species level genetic obligation and species level interests for the Enshlishman to share resources with ALL humans on earth because the entire human species shares common genetic frequencies.

Natives of Senegal and Vietnam also share distinctive species level genetic frequencies with the Englishman so why isn't the Englishman obligated to share resources with Senegalese and Vietnamese?

Why do genetic similarity obligations go beyond the family level but end entirely or almost entirely at the ethnic level? Why shouldn't genetic obligations and interests go beyond family level interests and obligations and straight to species level interests?

Under Salterism there is no fundamental reason why there shouldn't also be species level interests.

June 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Pan said...

w0w g0ld w0w g0ld, protect your ethnic genetic interests from individualist eugenics, w0w g0ld

June 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Lawful Neutral said...

Has anyone seen Moldbug commenting elsewhere lately? Maybe he's taken to using a different handle to keep us loyal orcs from following him around.

June 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Has anyone seen Moldbug commenting elsewhere lately?

Apparently our Overlord was busy writing the new Egyptian "Enabling laws" on behalf of Field Marshal Tantawi and the Egytpian military junta.

The military's declaration looks like chemically pure Mencian dictatorship, but without the sci-fi weapons and high tech detention facitilies and mind probes. Basically, the military gets to hand select the new group of Egyptians assigned to writing a new constitution, the Egyptian parliament has been dissolved, the newly elected president has no control over the military's budget or high command, and he can do nothing on foreign policy without the consent of the generals.

A bravura document you typed there, Mencius.

Maybe he's taken to using a different handle to keep us loyal orcs from following him around.

Be careful not to observe MM too closely, he may assume forms and shift shapes...

June 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

I think there may well be species-level interests. Don't you agree that if the world population of some species approaches ~500, or the p(extinction) approaches 0.33, it would be fitness-enhancing for its individuals to largely suspend for the time being any intra-specific competition? --And even engage in 'gratuitous' altruism towards conspecifics, provided the cost is modest. Extinction being just as bad as death, or worse, these acts are actually selfish.

If organisms in fact fail to evolve such a behavior program, I would guess it's probably because they are not threatened with extinction very often, or very regularly. The adaptation's utility is, then, simply not great enough to prevent the decay of the DNA that would encode it.

Of course many species may also have trouble detecting in the first place whether they have indeed sunk to a population near 500 -- however, plenty of species do have the chance to assess that directly.

June 18, 2012 at 3:22 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Don't you agree that if the world population of some species approaches ~500, or the p(extinction) approaches 0.33, it would be fitness-enhancing for its individuals to largely suspend for the time being any intra-specific competition?

Completely disagree. It's everyone for themselves during an extinction event due to resource scarcity and high death tolls. Extending crucial resources to a sub-species during an extinction threat could lead to that sub-species survival to the detriment of your own sub-species.

This is why the math is so heavily stacked against group interests beyond the kin level: if you extend resources and support beyond yourself and your offspring and to your own ethnic group, you risk lowering your own offspring's survival chances while raising the survival of genetically similar but non-immediate kin neighbors at your own offspring's expense.

But let's say the math does work in favor of group selection. Under a less extreme scenario than an extinction level event, when would racialists agree to extend resources and social obligations to non-whites because of species level genetic interests?

Also there is a third problem with EGI:

3) EGI advocates also support extending resources to other white ethnic groups, but there is no reason why genetic similarity should be the basis for extending these resources because different white ethnic groups have somewhat distinctive genes compared to closer white ethnic groups.

For example, there are small distinctive genetic differences between Swedes and Latvians (for one things, Latvians have a bit more Slavic DNA than Swedes do because of Latvia's greater proximity to Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine), but EGI supporters would have no problem with Swedes importing Latvian immigrants even though Swedes are genetically not as similar to Latvians as they are to other Swedes.

What is it about genetic similarity theory that would justify Swedes to extending resources and social obligations to Latvian immigrants but not Congoleses immigrants?

There is none, under EGI. Under EGI, Latvians would be less worse than Congolese immigrants in terms of distance, but there would still be no reason Swedes should view Latvians as legitimate Swedes from EGI because there are small differences in allele frequency between the two groups.

The answer to this question comes from Darwin, not Salter's mangled logic.

Under old fashioned Darwinian theory, the reason Swedes should not have a problem assimilating Latvian immigrants is because Latvians share the psychological characteristics needed to thrive and carry forward Swedish cultural and social organization while Congolese immigrants to do not share those cognitive capabilities because they are not ADAPTED for a Swedish cultural environment as Latvians are.

The reason race is important is because Darwinianly selected adaptations, not the ridiculous "Ethnic Genetic Interests".

June 19, 2012 at 6:59 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

And the takeaway from all this drivel is that if you're ever in a life boat with TUJ, don't take a nap, and if he shuts his eyes kill him in his sleep.

The only thing more amusing than the dogmatic attitude of one side of this is the obtuseness of the other.

June 20, 2012 at 5:51 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"The only thing more amusing than the dogmatic attitude of one side of this is the obtuseness of the other."

Heh.

June 20, 2012 at 6:36 AM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

It turns out that Ecuador, J. Assange's future home, had a populist military "Julian Revolution" in 1925. You heard it here first!

June 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Lawful Neutral -

He's been commenting semi-regularly at Hacker News for the past year or so:

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=moldbug

June 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Since the EGI groupies haven't even responded to the Darwinian critiques of EGI, it appears EGI has lost the argument.

Melvindichter would certainly agree.

And the takeaway from all this drivel is that if you're ever in a life boat with TUJ, don't take a nap, and if he shuts his eyes kill him in his sleep.

Was that supposed to be a counter-argument, or you just having a bad day?

June 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

He's been commenting semi-regularly at Hacker News for the past year or so:

He brings cosmic wisdom wherever he goes.

June 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Heh.

And your argument in favor of EGI is...

June 20, 2012 at 8:17 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> It's everyone for themselves during an extinction event due to resource scarcity and high death tolls.

Well, it depends on which situations we ponder. At least some extinction-skirting situations feature essentially constant food and shelter per capita -- consider a highly isolated lake that at times becomes many times smaller, and almost threatens to dry up altogether. Or a volcanic island most of whose land area is periodically devastated. Or a continent where a slightly superior competitor species is introduced -- it outcompetes the index species for resources, but only by 0.5%, such that extinction is approached in a very slow process.

In these situations, with only 70 individuals left in the species, random conspecifics are your tools for not having your (and your alleles') fitness legacy irreversibly set at naught -- random conspecifics are always your tools in this way, only that fact won't influence your behavior at normal times, when the near-term risk of extinction is one millionth. --Because one millionth -- or 0.45, as the case may be -- is going to be a coefficient of your level of interest in the matter. If you aren't going extinct right now, I'd suggest worrying about it later.

However, the day the species does go extinct, it no longer matters that you aided your kin/descendants around time t, and that your alleles aided/generated other copies of themselves. All is lost, you & yours can't transfer into some other species, nor can your alleles. I don't know, maybe it's somewhat nice in itself that you once had fitness, but the fact is you haven't got it anymore. Think of this, youngblood, I once had a certain amount of it myself, not excluding a social life of sorts -- girls, even -- now chiefly phantoms and mementos. --Hence (obviously) my embittered delight in hobbies like persecuting world Jewry.

As long as extinction is looming very close, you must compromise between fighting extinction and fighting for your own fitness in the usual sense. You will play nicer than usual with random conspecifics -- for instance territories will become somewhat more equal in desirability. Territories cost energy and well-being, and such intraspecific competition is sub-worthless friction from the species perspective (except in the very long run inasmuch as it's eugenic). You will focus relatively more on striving against other species, and against abiotic factors.

June 21, 2012 at 5:24 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> if you extend resources and support beyond yourself and your offspring and to your own ethnic group, you risk lowering your own offspring's survival chances while raising the survival of genetically similar but non-immediate kin neighbors at your own offspring's expense.

Certainly true, but you have few offspring and millions of coethnics. That has to be a major consideration.

> There is none, under EGI. Under EGI, Latvians would be less worse than Congolese immigrants in terms of distance, but there would still be no reason Swedes should view Latvians as legitimate Swedes from EGI because there are small differences in allele frequency between the two groups.

I entirely agree. There are probably (nonrandom) allele freq differences from west Malmo to east Malmo, however tiny -- so I could choose to be an east Malmo separato-racist on an EGI basis. Genetic distance is a continuous variable, ergo there are concentric circles of fellow-feeling, as hbdchick would say. Or rather, genetic distance may be one reason for the concentric circles, which in any case do generally seem to exist. To be extremely precise it could be more a gradient than a set of discrete circles, whatever.

Why Europe then, instead of Germany, Saxony, Eurasi-africa, man at large? Or why Europe primarily, since personally I do care somewhat about man at large? (As for the USA, or even the community of US Whites, I can't say I'm specifically attached to it in any degree.) Well, there's an infinity of contingent and highly complex reasons, and it's very subjective. Hence the very, very bitter fight of someone like Nietzsche against German nationalists in his time -- 'parochialists' -- whereas he doesn't really appear to have disagreed with them in general, except that he wanted things to be on a pan-European level.

Slavs are clearly a little clumsier in science, equal in art, higher in love of adventure and energy -- all Europe is united by world-beating art and femmes, there you have it. The men aren't so shabby either, they did make most of the art. What else in the world could you possibly be so concerned about? A jug of wine, a (very) early Kandinsky, and Thee. Plus adventure, so you can get killed eventually and your girl can cry on your cold pecs. I consider Atlantid babes to be more ethereal, but all in all I greatly prefer the conversation Slavs -- since they aren't all stooped ovine fags like Atlantids, who do as they're told, but a swarm of primitive and unhinged intransigents, frightening prometheans. Even the women. For the post-ancient period, I do prefer the northern art, primarily (ie well north of Rome, from England to Vladivo), but not entirely. I'm not necessarily in favor of panmixis within Europa, but it wouldn't break my heart. Of course, I am somewhat mixed myself.

June 21, 2012 at 6:15 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"And your argument in favor of EGI is..."

My what now?

June 21, 2012 at 6:26 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

I've got no particular feelings about EGI partisans beyond mild amusement (and I've defended inter-racial mixing here in the past), but I'll make an argument for them because I don't like you.

Everything you're saying boils down to concern trolling. Presumably you are not a co-ethnic of the prominent proponents of EGI (though your undisclosed co-ethnics seem to be quite supportive of the concept in practice). If it's so anti-Darwinian, that's good for you, right? Darwin is your God, so they will be judged and found wanting. Maybe you're an altruist, I don't know. But then we see this little outburst of autistic econo-speak:

"It's everyone for themselves during an extinction event due to resource scarcity and high death tolls. Extending crucial resources to a sub-species during an extinction threat could lead to that sub-species survival to the detriment of your own sub-species."

That's the one that made me shake my head. It seems there's a point where you and the EGI crowd completely reverse positions. Before that point, you're all universal brotherhood, lets shake things up and let Darwin sort it all out, survival of the fittest style, and your adversaries, bless 'em, they have a sentimental attachment to children that look like them and no amount of argument or math will talk them out of it, their appeals to science notwithstanding. But when the asteroid hits, you're all gotta get mine, zero sum game, and your adversaries say well, I like people better than insects so you can have some of my fruit, maybe we'll get it on later even though our kids won't look exactly like me.

So what changes? Thinking in Darwinian reductionist terms, EGI proponents believe that civilized society can hinder people's ability to accurately assess fitness. As a Jewish Darwinian reductionist, you'll probably say that it just changes what traits enhance fitness the most, and I suppose you're not wrong, assuming Darwin actually is God, and we are at the end of history.

Another weird thing is the way the survival of your specific genes overrides the importance of the survival of the species when the asteroid hits. It shows that you accept the principle of preferring your own genes for non-Darwinian reasons (or do you think anything besides a no-holds-barred Hobbesian struggle will allow the weak to infect the severely depleted gene pool, and ultimately decrease the odds of the species surviving?), while illustrating your lack of perspective. It also makes pretty clear why you have such a hard time grasping why, in your example, it's not crazy (in Darwinian terms) for the rich Englishman to support co-ethnics beyond his immediate family.

"Basically, if we consider things only through the lens of genetic similarity, if your family is more related to you than non-family members of your own ethnic group, then why shouldn't one's family level genetic interests and obligations trump your ethnic level genetic interests and obligations and lead one to not give any resources at all to anyone outside your immediate family?"

Think of it as insurance. Maybe he is a superman, but that's no guarantee that his kids will be. It gets a little more questionable when times get tough, but your guy's loaded. His kids aren't hungry. And being wealthy without earning it would probably make them useless (especially if they're Darwinian reductionists who are also market fundamentalists and therefore believe their wealth indicates superior fitness).

So while I find the EGI crowd unappealing, I find your (stereotype reinforcing) position even more so. In fact, it's bizarrely reminiscent of leap-frogging loyalties, but with a scientific rationalization.

On another note, I wonder if this is Mencius' bro:

http://yarchive.net/home.html

June 21, 2012 at 7:56 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

Ellen Day Hale <3 <3 <3

This may be my favorite American picture. Anyone know anything else highly interesting from her? I can't find anything much.

June 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

her main competition

June 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Wow, that is some painting. But stop invalidating my stereotypes. Do you know how much work it is to adjust those things?

June 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

I highly recommend these flixxx

free, and ever reactionnaire
http://gloria.tv/?media=25941

paywall... at this joint you get the whole(?) Criterion Collection (largely degenerate shit but it's a large repository of art films), plus some other shit for I don't know, X a month. Otherwise I assume you could net this bitch on netflixxx.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/225637

June 23, 2012 at 4:45 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

Actually, I un-recommend "Country Priest". Bear with me, this isn't an exact science.

I propose this bad boy as the greatest artwork of the 20th: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8293610261615012858

June 23, 2012 at 6:47 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

That's the one that made me shake my head. It seems there's a point where you and the EGI crowd completely reverse positions. Before that point, you're all universal brotherhood, lets shake things up and let Darwin sort it all out, survival of the fittest style, and your adversaries, bless 'em, they have a sentimental attachment to children that look like them and no amount of argument or math will talk them out of it, their appeals to science notwithstanding. But when the asteroid hits, you're all gotta get mine, zero sum game, and your adversaries say well, I like people better than insects so you can have some of my fruit, maybe we'll get it on later even though our kids won't look exactly like me.

So what changes? Thinking in Darwinian reductionist terms, EGI proponents believe that civilized society can hinder people's ability to accurately assess fitness. As a Jewish Darwinian reductionist, you'll probably say that it just changes what traits enhance fitness the most, and I suppose you're not wrong, assuming Darwin actually is God, and we are at the end of history.

Another weird thing is the way the survival of your specific genes overrides the importance of the survival of the species when the asteroid hits. It shows that you accept the principle of preferring your own genes for non-Darwinian reasons (or do you think anything besides a no-holds-barred Hobbesian struggle will allow the weak to infect the severely depleted gene pool, and ultimately decrease the odds of the species surviving?), while illustrating your lack of perspective. It also makes pretty clear why you have such a hard time grasping why, in your example, it's not crazy (in Darwinian terms) for the rich Englishman to support co-ethnics beyond his immediate family.


That was supposed to be a defense of EGI???

Not quite sure what point you were trying to make with that rant, but everything I wrote against EGI is consistent with mainstream arguments against group selection (it's more optimal to support your kin than your "group", etc).

Would you care to write an argument in favor of EGI?

And go easier on the bath salts if you write a sequel, please.

June 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Certainly true, but you have few offspring and millions of coethnics. That has to be a major consideration.

But the importance of race can't be explained without refering to the evolved cognitive abilities that a race has developed and why certain cognitive profiles are better suited to maintain certain cultures than others.

For instance, Congolese immigrants won't assimilate into Swedish culture as well as Latvian immigrants because the cognitive profile of Congolese is not (too a very large, but probably not complete extent) compatible with a high trust Western nation like Sweden because of the African's low intelligence, high criminality, poor future time orientation, etc.

Latvians would assimilate, despite being somewhat different from Swedes, because their cognitive profile is a very solid fit for Swedish culture.

Cognitive ability is really the issue race realists have wanted to get at, not genetic distance, per se, because race realists don't oppose genetically different white immigrant groups immigrating to white countries. When Amren posts an article about black crime rates or Hispanic dropout rates they do so to highlight differences in racial mental ability not genetic distance.

June 28, 2012 at 7:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home