How HBD Will Make you a Better Person

I like Rod Dreher, but all too often Dreher will happen upon a truth, only to back away from it.  Case in point:  Dreher’s recent post on HBD, where in essence Dreher says (1) human biodiversity is real but (2) it shouldn’t be publicly promoted as it conflicts with the precepts of the Cathedral.  Dreher’s chain of reasoning somehow concludes that public recognition of HBD could result in genocide.  He writes:

I flat-out don’t trust our species to handle the knowledge of human biodiversity without turning it into an ideology of dehumanization, racism, and at worst, genocide. Put another way, I am hostile to this kind of thing not because I believe it’s probably false, but because I believe a lot of it is probably true — and we have shown that we, by our natures, can’t handle this kind of truth….

You start out exploring the science of genetic differences, which is, or ought to be, a neutral thing, and before you know it you have the greatest scientific authorities in the world coming up with eugenic theories supporting the idea of “life unworthy of life,” and then you end with Auschwitz.

I do applaud Dreher for his candor.  He writes what many people probably think in secret.

But there are a number of flaws to this view.  I’ll list  a few.

First, the bogeyman of eugenics.  Eugenics is nothing new.  Plato and Aristotle popularized eugenics.  In fact, at least for Europeans and North Asians, eugenics has probably been around in various forms for the past 10,000 years.  And although the popular imagination conjures up images of gas chambers when thinking of eugenics, in reality eugenics has often been prudent government policy such as encouraging the best and brightest to have more kids.

Second, forbidden knowledge does not result in genocide.  The problem with this view is that genocide has been the norm throughout human history — that is, until very recently.  On a historical timeline, our recent scientific knowledge of racial differences actually negatively correlates with the historic trend of genocide.

Third, HBD in the broad view is not some new, radical way of looking at the world.   A pre-scientific understanding of racial differences has been around since at least the ancient world.  It’s nothing new.  In fact, the hereditarian outlook was the norm in both Ancient and Medieval Europe.  Blank-Slatisim is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Fourth, Dreher fancies himself a Christian evolutionist.  He accepts the obvious truth of Darwinian evolution, but simultaneously holds an ultimate Christian view of the world.  If, extrapolating from Dreher, God set the laws of evolution into motion and evolution brought about HBD, why should one be obliged to ignore this obvious truth of the world?  I don’t get it.

Fifth, Auschwitz?  Yawn.  The Reductio ad Hitlerum is so 20th century.

Now on to some of the benefits of HBD:  How HBD will make you a better person:

– Understanding limits.  You will understand the limits of certain groups and not become frustrated when certain groups cannot attain the same success as other groups.

– Recognition of HBD would lower white liberals’ expectations for blacks and mestizos, which in turn would lower blacks and mestizos’ expectations for themselves.  For instance, part of the black psychosis — high narcissism with poor performance — is that blacks are told the reason they always are below whites in all meaningful indices is because of white racism, not their own abilities, which can result in violent black-on-white crime.  As any wise teacher or parent knows, realistic expectations produce more content children.  A public recognition of HBD, after the initial shock wears off, could actually make blacks happier.

– Although HBD might not be the guiding principle of policy, it could certainly inform it — especially on topics like immigration.

– In the long-term, acknowledging veritas, however bitter that pill might be, will only make one wiser and stronger.  Realism is a good thing, and naively idealistic people like white Americans need more of it.  (Just look at the disasterous American foreign policy, devoid of both truth and realism.)

Updates:

Outsideness: Shorter Rod Dreher: “We’re lying to everyone, and they’re telling the truth, but we’re the good guys (because Hitler).”

Land on Dreher.

Hetero HIV surge in UK due to white women having sex with black men

Apparently, there’s a heterosexual HIV surge in the UK due to white women having sex with black men.  Healthy Living reports:

So why a sudden increase in HIV prevalence amongst white British heterosexuals? The vast majority of heterosexual women diagnosed with HIV in the UK are infected abroad and David Sykes of HIVNow UK believes it is largely due to female sex tourism “The numbers of western women travelling to lesser developed countries to have sex with the local men has risen dramatically in the past few years.”

“Unfortunately the most popular sex tourist destinations appear to be areas with severe HIV AIDS issues” he continues “These women have unprotected sex with men in Africa then come home and give it to their husbands.”

“I came across a case recently where a married man and woman were both infected by HIV along with their two young children. Upon investigation it was revealed the woman had taken part in a humanitarian trip eight years earlier in sub Saharan Africa, having unprotected vaginal and anal sex with local men – infecting her husband a year later then subsequently infecting her two children through breast feeding.”

Popular female sex tourism destinations include the Caribbean, particularly Barbados and Jamaica and African countries such as Gambia, Senegal and Kenya.

In other news, the Catholic Church is beating the drums for the Third World invasion of the West.   As we’ve noted here already (“As Christianity Becomes a Ghetto religion,” “Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?” and “Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“), contemporary Christianity is at war with the West.

Related:

“Benefits of Hybrid Vigor Overstated“

Unamusement Park: “Perils of Miscegenation“

Chateau Heartiste: “The Truth about Mixed-Race Couples“

A.J. Fisher: “Biological Problems with Mixed-Race Relationships“

Has Mark Steyn thrown National Review under the bus?

In the wake of Mark Steyn’s recent contretemps with his editor at National Review (somebody named Jason Steorts) people have been wondering whether Steyn’s been Derb’d.

Since, at this point, Steyn is surely a bigger deal than everybody else at NR put together, I think it makes more sense to ask: has he thrown NR under the bus?

Anyway, here are his last four posts at NRO, in chronological order:

12/20. Article: “The Age of Intolerance”

http://nationalreview.com/article/366896/age-intolerance-mark-steyn/page/0/1

sample quote: “How do you make a fruit cordial? – Be nice to him. Or else.”

12/22. Corner Post: “Re-Education Camp”

http://nationalreview.com/corner/366943/re-education-camp-mark-steyn

sample quote: “I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to ‘normalize’ what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my ‘derogatory language’ offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point – that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal.”

12/24. Corner Post: “Mumbo-Jumbo for Beginners”

http://nationalreview.com/corner/367069/mumbo-jumbo-beginners-mark-steyn

sample quote: “I don’t know why one of NR’s editorial staff could not have posted the court order with an accompanying explanation…”

[editors note: uh-oh. things are getting REALLY ugly here.]

1/3. “Happy Warrior” Column: “Heading South”

http://www.steynonline.com/5995/heading-south

No sample quote this time. You simply must read the whole thing. Think what the late Lawrence Auster might have said about the Mandela funeral – if only he’d had a little more sense of humor.

Could this have been the last straw for the guys at NR, most of whom seem to be firmly in the Nelson Mandela = Martin Luther King = Jesus of Nazareth camp?

Mexicans, fattest people on planet, at genetic risk for diabetes?

It was recently discovered that Mexicans and other Latin Americans (i.e. Mestizos & Amerindians) are at a high genetic risk for type 2 diabetes.   From paper “Sequence variants in SLC16A11 are a common risk factor for type 2 diabetes in Mexico“:

Here we analysed 9.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in each of 8,214 Mexicans and other Latin Americans: 3,848 with type 2 diabetes and 4,366 non-diabetic controls. In addition to replicating previous findings2, 3, 4, we identified a novel locus associated with type 2 diabetes at genome-wide significance spanning the solute carriers SLC16A11 and SLC16A13 (P = 3.9 × 10−13; odds ratio (OR) = 1.29). The association was stronger in younger, leaner people with type 2 diabetes, and replicated in independent samples (P = 1.1 × 10−4; OR = 1.20). The risk haplotype carries four amino acid substitutions, all in SLC16A11; it is present at ~50% frequency in Native American samples and ~10% in east Asian, but is rare in European and African samples. Analysis of an archaic genome sequence indicated that the risk haplotype introgressed into modern humans via admixture with Neanderthals

The racial breakdown of Mexicans is as follows:

According to the CIA World Fact Book, Mexico is:
60% mestizo
30% Amerindian
Less than 10% European (mostly Spaniard)

And what is the ancestry of mestizos? Examining genetic ancestral markers, Rubén Lisker found the average admixture of a lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be:

59% Amerindian
34% European [mostly Spaniard]
and 6% black

As noted by above abstract, it is believed that this genetic disposition was inherited from Neanderthals.  All non-Africans have Neanderthal genes, and different non-African racial groups do not have the same Neanderthal genes.   This gene for type 2 diabetes seems to be predominant among the Amerindians of the New World (hence the high risk for Mexico, which is 90% Amerindian/Mestizo).   Perhaps Europeans and North Asians had this gene at one point but then lost it through 10,000 years of agriculture?

What can Mexicans (mestizos/Amerindians) do to combat this disposition?  Well, for starters, find a new cuisine, as Mexicans are now the fattest people on the planet.  As many health experts have recently noted, Mexican food might well be unhealthiest food around today.

Related:

“Benefits of Hybrid Vigor Overstated”

“Mexico’s Diabetes Epidemic”

“95% of White Americans Have No African Ancestry”

Satan, Dysgenics & Elites

Land draws attention to a statue of Satan that a group wants to erect at the Oklahoma capitol, which reminds me of the infamous 1972 Rothschild party (the inspiration for the cult scene in Eyes Wide Shut)  where Marie-Hélène Rothschild is dressed up as the Baphomet form of Satan:

Regardless where one comes down on Satan imagery of Rothschild parties, you have to admit that these parties had style —- unlike the Skull & Bones party of 2008 which involved hipster non-whites doing shots, listening to rap music, and jumping on furniture.

Still, one can see witness the progression of Western dysgenics in the form of parties of elites:  Beowulf party at Heorot –> Anthony Trollope’s depictions of decadent (yet grand) hunting parties –> Rothschild costume party –> Skull & Bones hipster party.

Aristotle, Darwin & HBD

After reading over Noah Millman’s hyperbolic piece on neoreaction, I noticed another post by him nominally about atheism but substantively about an evolutionary basis of morality. He writes:

Evolutionary psychology comes in to explain why some kind of morality is natural, since we can’t rely naively on an Aristotelean teleology which we now know has no empirical basis (but which, I cannot stress enough, Aristotle thought was scientific – I feel pretty confident that, were he alive today, Aristotle would be making precisely the same move). But much of the edifice of Aristotle’s ethics can be readily re-built on a Darwinian foundation. Now we have a theory of virtue and human flourishing, and an ethics to promote same within society. Between Aristotle and the neo-Darwinians, we’ve also probably got a Burkean bias towards existing institutions and arrangements and a preference for spontaneous order over imposed rules.

Minus Millman’s predilection for J.S. Mill, I have long thought along similar lines, and have in fact argued similar points (here, here, and here).  I’ve long thought that Aristotle (foremost a biologist) in his political and ethical writings was working along the same intuitions as a sociobiology ethicist would today, albeit with Aristotle’s more limited understanding of human science.

But there is a larger problem here. Call it the “Western blind spot”.  As automobiles have blind spots, so do biological Westerners, and this blind spot is “universalism,” the tendency to prescribe Western norms universally.  And this is the primary problem with evolutionary psychology today — the tendency to think evolution stopped from the neck down some 50,000 years ago and that all races are behaviorally and cognitively the same.  Anyone who has taken the time to look into human biodiversity, knows this simply isn’t and cannot be true.  Thus, it’s better to think of human natures (plural) and not human nature.  Call this the HBD caveat, which brings us back to Aristotle, who, in his Politics, essentially gives an HBD account of politics:  different ethnic groups are better suited for different forms of government.

Further reading:

Peter Frost: “Can evolutionary psychology evolve?,” “Whither evolutionary psychology?,” and “Human nature or human natures?”

Johan Bolhuis et al:  “Darwin in Mind: New Opportunities for Evolutionary Psychology”

AWC: “Is Natural Law Anti-Nature?” and “The Ancient Greeks & Romans, Beauty and Human Biodiversity“

America’s Disappointing New Elite

Steve Sailer recently posted a couple pieces (here and here) about Skull & Bones, the secret society at Yale, which got me to thinking about the 2009 exposé at Gawker.  While the popular imagination envisions what Skull & Bones once was — well-dressed, well-mannered WASP males — the reality of Skull & Bones today is entirely different.   After all, in recent years, Skull & Bones has become co-ed and multicultural. Here is what Skull & Bones is today.  Seriously, you’ve got to look at these photos of a 2008 Skull & Bones party at the Skull & Bones compound on Deer Island. I don’t know what photo I like the best:  the Asian & mulatto doing shots together, the Asian & mulatto doing some sort of crip-walk / jungle dance, or the black woman jumping / dancing on the furniture.

Whatever problems America’s old WASP elite might have had (before they were replaced by an Ashkenazi elite), at least the WASP elite was biologically representative of America’s founding stock and sympathetic to its preservation, as evidenced by the Immigration Act of 1924. It seems that the Ashkenazis now are giving way to new Third World hipsters, although the latter’s arrival could be at the expense of remaining WASPs and not Ashkenazis (as in Ivy League admissions).  Still, if Skull & Bones is a microcosm of America’s new coming elite, God help us all.  However, don’t let reality prevent the popular imagination from envisioning Skull & Bones as well-mannered WASP males, since secretly and aesthetically this is what the popular imagination truly desires.

In other news, UCLA drops Shakespeare and Chaucer requirement for English majors. Maybe students can just watch Univision in place of Shakespeare and Chaucer.  Idiocracy cometh.

Related:

“Who Supports Open Borders? Summary of Open-Borders Elite in USA”

“The West Needs New Elites”

“Harvard and the Anti-White Aesthetic”

“Human Nature vs. Hollywood Political Correctness“