The Truth about Human Nature
By • 2/27/07 |
Yanomamo warriors. |
In “The Realist Vision,” we saw that the worldview of our age is based on the Blank Slate/Noble Savage theory of human nature. According to this view, there is no innate human nature; rather, people come into the world as blank slates, and their abilities and personalities are shaped entirely by experience. Furthermore, man in his natural, primitive state is a Noble Savage who lives in peace and harmony with his fellow man.
The Blank Slate
The term “selfish gene” comes from Richard Dawkins’s 1976 book of that title. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins summarized the formulation of Darwinism that was emerging at that time and has subsequently become the standard theory among biologists. In this view, the motive force behind life is simply the tendency of genes to make copies of themselves. The origin of life was molecules that were capable of replicating themselves, or “replicators,” as Dawkins calls them. The replicators that prevailed were naturally those that were capable of creating the most copies of themselves. Because habitats were capable of supporting only a finite number of replicators, eventually different varieties came into competition with each other. Competition led the replicators to become more complex cellular organisms, and this same process has led to organisms of ever greater complexity. Eventually, organisms became so complex that the replicators ceased to be the entire organism and became a set of instructions for building organisms1.
Dawkins expresses the magnificent sweep of the Darwinist vision in this passage:
What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators? They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines2.
Organisms are merely vehicles that genes build in order to replicate. We are their “weird engines” cobbled together through millenia of random mutations, each one of which enabled our genes to replicate themselves more successfully. The “tortuous, indirect routes” through which genes communicate with the outside world are “adaptations,” that is, characteristics that enabled our ancestors to replicate in the past and hence have become part of our innate design. Some of these adaptations are physical characteristics; others are behaviors.
The discipline of sociobiology, which changed its name to “evolutionary psychology” after the earlier name became a byword, uses the theory of the selfish gene to study the human mind. Evolutionary psychologists reject the Blank Slate view of human nature. Rather, they believe human beings come into the world equipped with a wide variety of psychological adaptations, or instincts, that are designed to solve the typical problems humans faced during the majority of their history. Evolution takes a long time to happen, and people have lived in nation-state societies for a relatively short time in evolutionary terms. Humans spent virtually all of their history as primitive hunter-gatherers living in small bands and began to emerge from this condition only 10,000 years ago during the agricultural revolution. Consequently, evolutionary psychologists believe that our minds evolved to solve the problems faced by hunter-gatherers. As University of California scholars John Tooby and Leda Cosmides say in their excellent introduction to the field, “Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.”
Selfish gene theory accounts for the behavior of primitive peoples much better than the theory of the noble savage. Hunter-gatherer societies are violent and competitive in the most blatant ways. Warfare, for example, is universal in primitive societies. According to anthropologist Lawrence Keeley’s survey War Before Civilization, almost all pre-state societies that anthropologists have studied engaged in warfare, and those that did not had had peace imposed on them by the administration of modern nation-states3. Moreover, men living in pre-state societies are much more likely to die from warfare than those in state societies. In his famous study of the Yanomamo Indians of the Amazonian rain forest, anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who was heavily influenced by sociobiology, found that 30 percent of deaths among adult males were due to violence, which most commonly consisted of warfare between Yanomamo villages. Forty percent of Yanomamo men had participated in a killing of another Yanomamo4. Keeley’s survey shows such high levels of violence are typical of pre-state societies. By contrast, in 20th-century Europe and the United States, only about one percent of males died from warfare5.
Just as selfish gene theory predicts, warfare in pre-state societies is centered around sex. In fact, Chagnon found that disputes over women were the primary reason for Yanomamo warfare. Also, the capture of women was always a desired side benefit of warfare6. Again, the Yanomamo are typical of primitive peoples: Keeley’s survey found that the capture and rape of women have been a common motive for warfare among primitive peoples7.
Another reason why Yanomamo men engage in warfare is the social prestige that success in fighting brings. We have all seen male deer on television locking horns in order to determine which is the dominant male. Likewise, men in primitive societies achieve dominance through fighting prowess. The Yanomamo have a special initiation ceremony for men who have killed another man: these men become unokais, and they are granted higher status by the tribe than men who have not killed. The motive for the pursuit of dominance among male deer and male humans is the same: dominant males get more mates. Most male deer will never mate at all; virtually all the mating is performed by dominant stags. Similarly, Chagnon found that a Yanomamo unokai had two and a half times more children than a Yanomamo who had never killed. Unokais’ success in getting wives was due not merely to their capture of women, but to the prestige they enjoyed in their societies8.
Throughout the animal kingdom, the rule is that males are the more aggressive sex. The selfish gene perspective easily makes sense of this sex difference. Due to the facts of male and female biology, a male’s reproductive success is quite closely related to the number of mates he has, whereas a female’s is not. Consequently, males evolve to fight each other for access to females. Inter-male competition leads males to become larger and stronger than females and equips them with fighting mechanisms like horns, antlers, and tusks. The difference in body size and strength between men and women indicates, just as surely as a deer’s antlers, a long history of male competition for mates9.
Human males compete not only through physical aggression, but through the non-violent accumulation of wealth and power. Indeed, in Western societies, most inter-male competition is non-violent—although physical aggression remains an important determinant of dominance in some sectors of society, particularly in the gang cultures common among blacks and Hispanics. Despite the different form that competition takes in Western societies, the sex difference is still valid. Western men score higher on tests of dominance orientation than women. Men are more likely than women to agree with statements like, “To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others,” “Only the best people should get ahead in this world,” and “Winning is more important than how the game is played.”10 And Western women are just as attracted to dominant men as Yanomamo women are: wealthy, powerful men have greater sexual opportunity than non-dominant men and get more attractive mates11.
In the world of the selfish gene, a pure altruist simply cannot evolve. Any organism that is oriented to assuring the good of others, rather than his own, will merely be aiding selfish organisms to compete against him, and genetic mutations that produce such behavior will quickly be eliminated12.
This is not to say that all altruism is a mere illusion: specific, limited forms of altruism do evolve, but only because they too facilitate the replication of our selfish genes. One example is altruism among blood relatives. Not only among humans, but throughout the animal kingdom, organisms behave in ways that benefit their blood relatives with no benefit to themselves. However, this behavior turns out to be altruistic only when viewed from the perspective of the organism; it is selfish when viewed from the perspective of the gene. Blood relatives are organisms that share genes: parents and children share 50 percent of their genes on average, as do full siblings; uncles and nephews, grandparents and grandchildren, and half-siblings share 25 percent of their genes; cousins share one eighth of their genes. Therefore, genes program organisms to aid their relatives because this behavior facilitates the replication of identical genes in the objects of the aid. If someone lays down his life to save four of his siblings, this behavior is altruistic from the point of view of the organism, but selfish from the point of view of the gene. The genes of the altruist will never replicate, but there are twice as many of the altruist’s genes in the bodies of his siblings as in his own (50% x 4 = 200%)13.
Similarly, adaptations for cooperation and exchange evolve in many organisms as well, and these behaviors are fundamental to all human societies. Cooperation also serves the interest of the selfish gene. It entails a cost to each cooperating organism that is compensated by a larger benefit. Hunters in primitive human societies regularly give up some of their catch to the rest of their tribe on days when they are lucky, but it is with a clear expectation of payback on a day when other hunters are lucky. If the payback is not fulfilled, cheated altruists take their revenge through snide gossip about the cheaters and the refusal of future sharing14. Indeed, humans have evolved a whole suite of emotions and intellectual abilities to maintain a successful system of cooperation that works out to the greater good of all parties: liking attaches us to people who reliably reciprocate our sacrifices; gratitude encourages us to reciprocate the sacrifice of another; anger impels us to take revenge on those who do not reciprocate our sacrifices; guilt warns us that failure to reciprocate a sacrifice may result in the vindictive anger of others15. Tooby and Cosmides argue that the cooperation has molded our very reasoning abilities.
Most conservatives reject Darwinism in favor of creationism, not only because of the disturbing nature of the Darwinist ethic, but also because liberals have used evolutionary theory as a battering ram against traditionalism. Most evolutionists are indeed liberals; Richard Dawkins’s recent book The God Delusion, for example, is a hackneyed liberal screed. However, the politics of Darwinist academics have less to do with the real nature of Darwinism than with the liberal orthodoxy of the academy. In fact, there is no more powerful antidote to the Utopian Vision on which liberalism is based than the theory of the selfish gene, and the social philosophy that is the logical consequence of this theory has much in common with that of traditionalism. Liberals believe man is inherently good and will achieve Utopia by throwing off the trammels of authority. However, according to the Darwinist vision, man is naturally egoistic and needs the restraints of authority if he is to be capable of creating a decent society. Anyone who has truly understood the nature of our instincts will be grateful to Christianity for enabling us to escape our ancestors’ world of warfare and rape. Hopefully, traditionalists and Darwinists can join together in a common front against liberalism.
- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 12-20. ↑
- Dawkins, pp. 19-20. ↑
- Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 27-29. ↑
- Napoleon Chagnon, Yanomamo: The Last Days of Eden, 5th ed. (San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, p. 239. ↑
- Keeley, p. 90. ↑
- Chagnon, p. 220. ↑
- Keeley, p. 86. ↑
- Chagnon, pp. 239-40. ↑
- David M. Buss, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 278-311. ↑
- Buss, p. 353. ↑
- Buss, pp. 104-11. ↑
- Dawkins, pp. 166-88. ↑
- Dawkins, pp. 88-108. ↑
- Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York: Norton, 1997), pp. 504-06. ↑
- Pinker, pp. 402-07. ↑
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
Johm PM suggests – “…eugenic and reproductive laws favoring whites.”
John,
I believe such laws can be implemented de facto by reducing or eliminating the financial incentives for child bearing within the system of welfare benefits.
Sometime back, I heard one commentator opine (if memory serves, it was Bill Bennett) that a better approach than our current system would be to give back to each and every US citizen over the age of 18 the sum of $10k/yr in place of all other welfare benefits that are now provided. His primary point was that while $10k would allow the poor to afford food and shelter, it would be so little as to provide them with an incentive to find some sort of work to supplement that amount (without penalty for doing so). But, his second point was that even those with low IQ’s could easily figure out that having babies (for whom they would receive no additional monies) would reduce the amount available for themselves.
To me, this seems like an approach that might just have a real world chance of being implemented.
As an aside, I’d like to pose two additional thoughts to you as a continuation of our recent exchange on an AmRen thread. I’ve been musing further about a couple of extensions to the idea of black men deliberately targeting white women for “ruination”, and I am now trying to figure out how these considerations might fit into such a theme.
One of these goes along the line of something suggested in the article above:
“Anyone who has truly understood the nature of our instincts will be grateful to Christianity for enabling us to escape our ancestors’ world of warfare and rape”
I was considering the comparison between the “raping and pillaging” that were a part of warfare in previous centuries to the way blacks now live largely off of welfare and crime, while they seem to selectively target white women for either consensual sex or rape. In my mind, I believe I see a number of loose parallels, however I’m not too certain of the particulars (it’s a work in progress).
The second idea I’ve been mulling over is, as so often reported (on AmRen, anyway) the way in which it seems to be almost exclusively black men, particularly African immigrants, who are deliberately spreading AIDS to as many white women as they possibly can. Outside of an episode of “Law & Order”, I cannot think of one instance of a white man spreading the virus in a deliberate fashion (heterosexually). I haven’t even begun to research this yet, but I have a strong impression that it’s being done by blacks only.
Therefore, it occurs to me that beyond their self-gratification, another possible goal they might have is the ultimate “ruination” of the effected white women – who will almost certainly never have children after being infected.
I’m posing these to you in the hope that might provide further though on the respective matters.
SLW,
It sounds to me like you could use the advice of a professional therapist. John PM is a smart dude but it is not his duty to solve your deep psychological conflicts on this forum. Maybe you and your wife should seek counsel from Dr Phil?
Harlan - “John PM is a smart dude but it is not his duty to solve your deep psychological conflicts on this forum.”
Harlan,
I’m afraid you severely misunderstand my motivations. I highly respect John and his opinions. I’m guessing you are not aware of an exchange of ideas between John and I on another forum. I don’t believe that I have “deep psychological conflicts”, on the contrary, I’m quite well adjusted. I as simply trying to gain a better understanding of the array of inter-personal dynamics which contribute to matters which have become problems for the white race in general, and for white men in particular.
I view John as something of a guru - someone who has spent the kind of time that is required to have a firm grasp of the array of issues as they regard whites. I, myself, am a relatively new convert to white racial awareness (although it had been developing for many years).
Since John had thoughtfully responded to my observations on a topic which I believed to be related to this one, I though I might appeal to his good nature to provide me with feed-back as to whether he would agree or disagree with me that specific current events - black men targeting white women, and often with what seems to be the intent to spread disease - could be described as components of a larger “effort” being made against white men.
I realize both that you cannot be expected to understand the context in which I seek to impose upon Johns time and effort, and also that my approach here may be wholly inappropriate for this forum (if so, I apologize to one and all - especially John PM).
In either case, I’d like to thank you for choosing to butt-in with your rude insults. After all, insults are such an effective tool in persuasively arguing one case.
BTW, what case are you arguing here? And, just what do you believe to be my deep psychological conflicts? You wouldn’t be just trying to elevate yourself by belittling another here, now would you, Harlan?
To SLW, regarding:
“I was considering the comparison between the ‘raping and pillaging’ that were a part of warfare in previous centuries to the way blacks now live largely off of welfare and crime, while they seem to selectively target white women for either consensual sex or rape. In my mind, I believe I see a number of loose parallels, however I’m not too certain of the particulars (it’s a work in progress).”
Personally, I have long held that blacks for the most part do view the obtaining of a white woman for defilement as the form “warfare” that is winnable for them. To quote myself from that AR thread you reference:
“Why exactly would blacks see ‘ruining’ white women for white men, to be so desirous beyond the obvious instant personal satisfaction of the moment, is the longer term goal of our gradual extermination, is it not? After all, it does eliminate a potential mother of future white children to their enemies!
Thus, does not reducing our women to an untouchable status via a dose of black ‘pimp’ bestiality, offer them the one thing that neither their numbers or intellectual capabilities could ever achieve and they really want? But within that context, can it not be also inferred that much of our political and intellectual ‘leadership’ as a people has encouraged this also? After all, the destruction of our eugenic and segregationist norms of the past has allowed for this open genocidal warfare upon us as a people, along with all the anti-white and pro-black propaganda!
Blacks are more instinctual and less given to thinking in terms of long term strategies, thus an obvious opening is going to be ‘exploited’ without the full long-term consequences being even considered on their parts. Hence, not only their foolishly bold attempts at ‘emasculation’ of white men through consensual sex, but also the even more dangerous game of rape. To them, since the rules have been eased, they now can be almost totally discarded; after all, is not the opponent offering to tie his arms behind his back, in their eyes?”
Your African AIDS infection speculations further reinforces the above for me, and is an excellent point by the way! Ironically (if darkly so) they blame us for their AIDS problems too, like everything else that plagues them in their mythology of excuses, we “created” it. So why not visit it back on us? This would operate in tandem, with their generalized hatred and jealously of us.
The second part of the problem, does stem largely from the current Western trend of “equality” between the sexes and our sexual “liberation.” In most of the Third World, women are not equals and border on being property. The very idea, that we seek to come to some form of partnership with them to allow for a reasonable “equality” must be seen through their eyes as yet another foolish weakness? Keep in mind, that this only translates to “equality” in the schools, workplace, and political activity; in many respects an unspoken “protection” and “pampering” of white women is still encouraged in interpersonal relations. Thus, they are rather free to exercise a selective “independence,” that they feel we must accommodate within their “perceived” comfort zones. This includes sexual “freedoms” that were unheard of in the past and a near dictatorial control over reproduction, via current abortion “norms.”
In that rather contradictory set of rules, along with the multicultural propagandizing, white women make easy targets for nonwhites to exploit. This is true of both the consensual and forced sexual attacks launched by nonwhite males upon white women. In both, white women enter situations where they expect nonwhites to act like whites, either to regret or a “satisfied” bitterness given the outcome! That latter point, being a feeding of the anti-men self-fulfilling prophecy that comes from birthing one or more mulattos, and figuring out that they are no longer the viable “white princess” to any man, regardless of pigmentation!
In general, I agree with your points about monetary incentives for the races and eugenics policy; I have advocated for such on AR myself, if from a different track, this being tax laws. This would include the elimination of welfare altogether, along with affirmative action, and an expectation that work equals survival and acceptable procreation will be rewarded along racial considerations. Thus, a white man and woman married, and having children would be the top of the social strata and paying no more taxes then about 15%; with that considered, a white and nonwhite “couple” with more than one child would be at the very bottom and paying out far more than would be desired. Say 50% expected for the first child, and 100% for the second!
As for the question of rape, I am consistently hostile to all sex offenses period, rapists and pedophiles should be executed, end of story! However, given the genocidal “political” nature of nonwhite on white sex crimes (and violence in general) such interracial “misfortunes” should have consequences that leave no doubt that the “antlers will lock” and a “unfortunate” reduction of nonwhite to white population will be orchestrated for the geographic area the multicultural “mishap” occurred in. I prefer, counties to municipalities in such a model of action, but either way, the message would be clear: ‘Don’t F**K with “whitey” anymore, particularly the women and children!’
Finally, I did respond to you in that AR thread in question, it is slightly rambling but it should make some sense given the context? If not, feel free to ask for clarifications SLW,
John PM!
John PM - “To SLW, regarding:”
Hey, Harlan,
Who needs Dr. Phil? John PM has solved my “deep psychological conflicts”, and I’m all better know! But, thanks for your concern.
“Who needs Dr. Phil? John PM has solved my “deep psychological conflicts”, and I’m all better know! But, thanks for your concern.”—SLW
Hey,John PM,
Make sure you send, SLW, a bill for services rendered! LOL But I’m convinced he needs many follow up sessions. The “bogeyman” still haunts his subconscious.
Though I assume your lumping of non-whites as rapists was a simple time-saving procedure - not all races share those traits - nor do all races within the West share those traits - discounting recent arrivals.
What I meant was E.Asians, and Indians from India - though I cannot speak for the less selective recent arrivals.
To SLW and Harlan,
Ironically, I am trained in clinical psychology and specialize in criminal/addiction matters? SLW, I am surprised, you never caught my references to this at AR? Well, you are rather still new there too, so no faux pas; you can just file that under the “general info” on the John PM, curiosity and oddity footnotes—LOL!
I am no Dr. Phil, Thank God, as he is a quack—LOL!!!
But this much I will say here to both of you, SLW does not strike me as needing the services of the psychological clinicians or a quacks!
He was right Harlan, this was sort of an ongoing back-and-forth on this topic between he and myself on AR and here at IW too. An unfortunate and unalterable situation now, but simply the facts too.
What more to say, other than, Post No Bills—LOL???
MensaRefugee notes:
“Though I assume your lumping of non-whites as rapists was a simple time-saving procedure - not all races share those traits - nor do all races within the West share those traits - discounting recent arrivals.
What I meant was E.Asians, and Indians from India - though I cannot speak for the less selective recent arrivals.”
Interesting, if also rambling observations?
Most of what I posted on the topic of nonwhite rapes of white woman and children should be obvious?
However, if you need clarification now, you have “helped” me here, in your odd way in deciding exactly what that should be?
Since all whites are “guilty” of “racism,” perhaps all nonwhites’ expressions of “exasperation” or “entitlement” should be considered in that “construct?”
‘All for one, and one for all?’
Particularly against my people here, even when “consensual?”
Words and actions both mean “everything” and “nothing,” right?
Thus, in my “construct” tonight, any “sexually reproductive” limiting actions by nonwhites against whites, should be considered rape?
No matter what they might be otherwise, in other contexts!!!
John PM - “SLW, I am surprised, you never caught my references to this at AR?”
John,
I did recall that you had mentioned it before. I’m not sure if he was trying to be rude, or trying to be funny, but Harlan was not entirely mistaken - though not as he might think. It was precisely because I did know of your background that I made my inquiry of you in the manner that I did. Not to intentionally fuel Harlan, but I did have some internal conflict as to whether or not I might have simply been projecting my own biases into my attempts to make sense of the issue, and seeing what I wanted to, rather than what actually existed.
(Okay, Harlan, I’m sure I’ve set my self up… so, fire away)
“(Okay, Harlan, I’m sure I’ve set my self up… so, fire away)”
No,SLW, I can understand your dismay over the BM/WF miscegenation issue—it is entirely justified to wrestle with your feelings regarding that issue. My apologies are in order.
But John PM really went over the line when he called Dr Phil a quack! What outrage will he proclaim next? Perhaps that Oprah isn’t a racist? LOL Just kidding, John, just kidding.
You replied to my “rambling” post with an even more rambling post. Congratulations.
You want polarization, you’ll get it. And no it wont be pretty.
To SLW, regarding:
“It was precisely because I did know of your background that I made my inquiry of you in the manner that I did. Not to intentionally fuel Harlan, but I did have some internal conflict as to whether or not I might have simply been projecting my own biases into my attempts to make sense of the issue, and seeing what I wanted to, rather than what actually existed.”
The first thing you learn in psychology, is that we all project or interject our personal biases when assessing or explaining a given situation and that would most certainly include the topic of interracial dating or marriage. Have you ever heard of the social psychology theory of “The Fundamental Attribution Error” (TFAE?)
This theory holds that all individuals tend to exaggeratedly explain external or environmental factors as influencing their negative behaviors, while doing the reverse when explaining the behaviors of others. That is, to exaggeratedly blame internal influences on the negative behaviors of observed others. Thus, I explain away my shouting at a cashier in the grocery store because work stunk today and the cashier is a bumbling fool. However, if I see you do the same, it is because you are an “ill mannered lout.” Interestingly, this theory is one of the more rigorously tested of social psychology’s constructs, and has enough commonsense to it, to be reasonably plausible.
I for one fully admit that I catch myself doing this all the time, the trick is being able to do this and then step back and reevaluate a given situation. I am more successful at it professionally, then I will ever be on these types of discussion boards or considering politics and social trends (particularly in terms of race) in general. Hence, it was sincerely expressed high praise when I noted that you changed my opinion on forgiveness toward repentant white women who were young, naïve, and somewhat brainwashed when they engaged in one or two such dalliances, but now regret it and return back to the fold.
There was a time and not all that long ago mind you, that I would have simply rejected such a fair-minded and sympathetic position as “weak” and “stupid.” As I explained in that AR thread, my formative situations were very different from yours and fostered a hard-line on this question, and nothing else. Moreover, this was not limited to my high school’s cultural norms, but strongly reinforced at home. When I got my “birds and bees” talk from my father (as did all my siblings) there was a very “unusual” component that went something like this: ’It is your life so don’t wreck it, don’t go out with or sleep around with them, because if you think you will be on your own and responsible for a child you have with a white girl out of wedlock, you will at least get some support from your mother and I, but do the same with one of them and we will not want anything to do with you ever again…If you don’t mind breaking our hearts, why should we care about yours…?’
While that might seem “harsh” or even “cruel” on the surface (and even unnecessary in my case, as I have never found nonwhite women to be really appealing the way I do white ones) dad did me more of a favor in the long run than anything else.
All the best SLW,
John PM!
To Harlan, regarding:
“But John PM really went over the line when he called Dr Phil a quack! What outrage will he proclaim next? Perhaps that Oprah isn’t a racist? LOL Just kidding, John, just kidding.”
Of course Oprah isn’t a racist purple cow, anymore than revoltingly rank Rosie is a Red bull! As Obi-Wan tells Luke in Return of the Jedi: “Luke, you are going to find that many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view…”
Just don’t tell the wretchedly sanctimonious Dr. Phil that…LOL—Quack, Quack, Quack—LOLhttp://inverted-world.com/cms/images/smileys/wink.gif
All the best to you too Harlan,
John PM!
“Anyone who has truly understood the nature of our instincts will be grateful to Christianity for enabling us to escape our ancestors’ world of warfare and rape. Hopefully, traditionalists and Darwinists can join together in a common front against liberalism.”
As [a] “theist”, I believe in divine creation. I think the theory of evolution as expressed by Darwin is deeply flawed at it’s most fundamental level. Why? Because there is no evedence for macro-evolution, or even one species evolving into another - none! However, there is evedence of micro-evolution—that being evolution within species; hence, the variations of human beings.
I do believe in the theory of “The Selfish Gene,” and “Because habitats were capable of supporting only a finite number of replicators, eventually different varieties came into competition with each other.”
Since at least as far back as the middle of the eighteenth century (with philosophers like Rousseau on the scene), whites have adopted an “altruist collectivist” mentality. This mentality has proven to function as a retro-virus when we are integrated with non-white cultures. It weakens our defence mechanisms and over-time, the alien minorities begin to weaken, dominate, then ultimately vanquish the host culture/ethnicity.
An anti-dote to liberalism; communism; multiculturalism etc. is “Objectivism” and laissez-faire capitalism as spelled out by Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand puts forth a philosophy of “Rational selfishness” or the “Virtue of Selfishness.” Rand asserts that selfishness is a virtue, and is endemic within mans nature. Her central theme in her great book “Atlas Shrugged” is:
>>“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
We, as whites, if we are going to survive very much longer, we need unyoke ourselves from non-white inferiors. That must be done by rejecting the altruist collectivist philosophy that the non-white-parasites feed off of. The only way to starve out the parasites that have attached themselves to us is practice Capitalism!
Hows that for rambling? http://inverted-world.com/cms/images/smileys/wink.gif
Attn: The Realist
DAWKINS’ FOLLY:
Atheists, even the cleverest ones, are outbred by believers UK is especially vulnerable to Muslims out breeding the atheistically inclined natives
So in an England 100 years from now no one will know or care about a Richard Dawkins and his Grande theories about how religions are insanity. The first human commandment is to live, survive and multiply. Atheists are very deficient in this
I kind of find it odd how you’re quoting this book as a polemic against liberalism, since it’s actually very contrary to the far right worldview you push off.
It actually shows that extreme levels of violence have been a human universal- working independently of race and geography- even though you push off works like Rushton and Lynn who say the ice age determined everything like this. It also shows the strong long-term effects of culture, considering how so many populations today are now docile. And it also shows how these rates of violence are largely, and in many cases wholly irrelevant to civilizational development on a pre-modern scale.
A long example would be this: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/dbg.chap3.htm
“Indeed, humans have evolved a whole suite of emotions and intellectual abilities to maintain a successful system of cooperation that works out to the greater good of all parties: liking attaches us to people who reliably reciprocate our sacrifices; gratitude encourages us to reciprocate the sacrifice of another; anger impels us to take revenge on those who do not reciprocate our sacrifices; guilt warns us that failure to reciprocate a sacrifice may result in the vindictive anger of others15.”
To The Realist and All,
The implications of this article are very disturbing, to begin with. However, when taken in tandem with the current political dogmas of multiculturalism and white interracial altruism, one has the makings of the next great genocide of Western history. It could go either of two ways here folks: first, will be the eventual extermination of the white race (ongoing currently via voluntary miscegenation and abortion) to outright massacres of us once we hit so small a percentage of our own population that it becomes viable for nonwhites to do it; or second, a reactionary and highly tenacious overturning of the multicultural and white interracial altruism paradigms, with a logical implementation of totalitarian restrictions on the “rights” of nonwhites primarily and whites secondarily.
Under the present circumstances, it would appear the first scenario is all too likely. Currently nonwhites of both sexes seek out white partners and select them as targets for their assumed “grievance” crimes of violence at shocking rates. In particular, it is important to note the focus of nonwhite males in the defiling of white women either through impregnating them voluntarily, or attempting it involuntarily through their rape of them. The media and political “elites” of this country overtly promote the former, and apparently covertly acquiesce to the latter by way of their near universal subterfuge and silence on the issue. In short, the white race remains at about an endurably comfortable 65% of the population and retains political power though a white “leadership” (corrupt and degenerate as it is) that these numbers allow for. Thus, if current trends prevail and that corrupt elite continues their treacherous mission to obtain our genocide, as their “high moral” social experiment, we may indeed be annihilated?
However, that is not set in stone and the current trends seem to be slowly reversing on the part of the white population as a whole? This is particularly true, in the current debate regarding the 20 million “undocumented” and “deserving” invaders from the Third World wonderlands of “diversity” exportation. Here the general public clearly demands a firm hand, while the “elite” favors weak cosmetic gestures and mollycoddling in dealing with the problem! Should the “elite” prevail here, should we go from 300 million to 320 million overnight via an “amnesty,” the white population drops to 62% of the population.
Interestingly, that is within what I consider to be the white racial backlash range; I hold this to be when the white population falls to between 62% and 57%, approximately.
A full scale backlash of this sort will likely see a political party emerge that is dedicated to retaining the reduced white majority at a minimum, and returning it to greater than 75% optimally? This will of course only be possible, through highly restrictive immigration laws (such as reversal of all past amnesties and “birthright” claims to citizenship) and eugenic and reproductive laws favoring whites. This will likely lead to high degrees of social tension to outright conflict.
In any event, neither is really desirable and could have been avoided had we come to our senses between 1985 and 1995. That we didn’t…?
Well, what more to say other than, God help us all!