Men's Rights and the Anatomy of Reaction

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/women-battle-online-anti-women-hate-manosphere/story?id=20579038
The Southern Poverty Law Center--a bunch of commies, jews, fags, and slags who've appointed and proclaimed themselves supra-Christian accusers of all evil in this world, holier than Jesus--think Chateau Heartiste and other assorted bloggers who operate from a realistic male perspective are evil, violent, malicious, mendacious. The "manosphere" is increasingly a branch of the "reactosphere" since (except the Christian reactionaries) both are grounded in reality--a reality which both political parties deny. When the leftist media comes down on you, it's a sign of headway. Also, a lesser light among the lefties just did a typically incompetent and inaccurate hit piece on Nick Land, the British philosopher who writes "Outside In." If you look at the map of Dark Enlightenment thinkers below, the connections are telling: with the exception of the Christians, all of these groupings revolve around some key aspect of reality that the Left denies or omits. Eight groups are listed, three count:

1. Techno-Capitalists,
2. Ethno-Nationalists,
3. Christian Traditionalists.

The relations among these three are predictably problematic. In theory the first and second or the second and third could come to terms in formulating a new dispensation--though difficulties abound. But, the first and third can only clash. Of course, 'twas was not always so. In centuries past capitalist and techno were not so tightly aligned, and capitalism itself is not an existential threat to Christian life and thought. Catallaxy is not anti-Christian. But, in these days of genetic engineering and evolutionary science, of neurological pharmacopeias and expanding machine intelligence--the technological underpinnings of twenty-first century capitalism represent conceptual catastrophes for Christian theology. In practice, it may be that two camps will coalesce--the Techno-capitalists with some sympathetic Ethno-nationalists, and the Christian Traditionalists with another contingent of Ethno-nationalists.

The future lies with the Techno-capitalists, whether they achieve more power in the West or not. The Christians cannot countenance the nano- and bio-tech revolutions. If empowered, they will crash the technoplex and render their realm geopolitically prostrate, as Land's "relentlessly self-enhancing" oriental realms scout new destinies. As to the Ethnos, though their present importance shines clearly through dusky leftist miasmas, what does the meaning of ethnicity reduce to when time comes that all humanoid inceptions aspire to become genetically engineered triumphs of power and aesthetics? Their perspective on reality would have to evolve so radically in face of such techno-leaps as to vanish their identity. Or, they could turn techno-denialist like the Christians. Either way, tide-taken relics of advancing storms, the time of the Ethnos draws down . Science has grown to the dimensions of a Demiurge--learned to throw lightning--and, cast under His dominion, the lesser deities will learn their place soon enough, or be new made in his image.

Known and Unknown Possibilities

 

A brief summary on why intelligent women should reproduce:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/assortative-mating-regression-and-all.html
Note that the .5-.7 estimate is based on how much assortative mating has occurred among each parent's ancestors (more past assortative reproduction raises the estimate).

In the distance, thunderings and flashings of the overman:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/06/plenty-of-room-at-top.html

Average person=1000 deleterious mutations affecting IQ. Top hundredth of a percent IQ=900 such deleterious mutations.

And if we did a few dozen rounds of in vitro eugenic breeding (iterated embryo selection, IES), how much might this number be reduced? Of course, other genetic goals would receive some priority as well (eg, girls should be blessed with Marilyn Monroe's physical attributes). The principle limit on this technology may well be lack of knowledge of the phenotypic effects of various genes and gene-gene interactions. Some mathematical problems cannot be solved--experiments become necessary. Extrapolating the recent rate of progress, I suspect IES will be feasible within 10 years, though it will be suboptimal at least with respect to the gaps in our knowledge of which genes do what. And on the non-linearity problem, Hsu said, "Most of the genetic variation in intelligence is additive...fortunately for us linear effects still dominate the population variation* of quantitative traits. As any engineer or physicist can attest, linearity is our best friend :-)" Inescapable non-linearity, tragically, renders climate predictions invalid.

One problem with Hsu's analogy of this process with plant breeding: the ethical environment is completely different. Blind alleys in plant breeding are merely a waste of resources; in humans, they may entail great suffering.
But, the potential effects, as derived from such analogies, are spectacular: 32 SD increase in corn oil production per plant (an effort still making progress), an increase in flying speed of certain flies from 2.2 to 170 cm/sec in 100 generations of directed breeding without significant downsides on other characteristics.

There is a prevalent sense among neurologists that human intelligence has already undergone intense evolutionary selection and that it is subject to certain physical limits. These points are relevant to neuro-eugenic prospects. Hsu in the comments responds to this: "the results imply lots of extant variation to work with. Just imagine flipping all the (-)'s to (+) in a particular person. You get a lot more than +5 SDs." Hsu in the comments: "One important aspect of the toy model I discuss in the talk is that if it is correct, then any couple has the potential of producing a nearly max IQ child, because there will be little overlap between the locations of their (-) alleles." Aha! The path around reproductively negligent female geniuses.


A finely compacted interview of Hsu on his genetics work:
http://intelligence.org/2013/08/31/stephen-hsu-on-cognitive-genomics/
Note that China is financing a major attempt to take the lead in practical human eugenics.

His recent intelligence and heritability presentation (less compacted):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgCSkGeBUNg&t=5m2s

In sum, this strikes me most forcefully--I had been unaware of the nearness of eugenic capacities--also unaware of their probable potential in the neurological realm. To paraphrase Boswell, my thoughts upon this awful change are in general full of wild apprehensions. This presages a Turn in human affairs, like to surpass all that came before. The implications are all-encompassing.

Rhetoric or Realism?

Herewith a chart of black-white IQ differences by standard deviation and year. The over 18 line is more reliable, ranging from .95 to 1.2. The avg difference looks to be about 1.1 (ie, 83 IQ for blacks). Note the green line is lower--blacks fall further behind as they get older. Also, the data reveals not a single case of black adults scoring higher than 88 IQ.

The lack of improvement despite extreme left-wing efforts ought to be discouraging--but that's the saving grace of idealism: reality may be set at nought so that the rainbow dream may shine on. Africans need some Chinese medicine (cough, eugenics, cough cough).

Die Uber-Chinese

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

 

Leftism is the flight from reality.

Reality may take many forms.

 

China has undertaken to provide us with our mandatory reality dose in this century.

Imagine if Nazi Germany had been run by Heydrich (relatively sane and smart) instead of Hitler (who squandered his potential) and its natural ethnic territory had been the size of America. This approximates the threat China will pose within a generation.

 

Leftism only knows one direction and ever intensified leftism either collapses in on itself--or those powers still in possession of their will to power crush its hollowed-out carcass and institute a new dispensation.

Singapore's Path

http://foseti.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/review-of-from-third-world-to-first-by-lee-kuan-yew/

This is what a country can do today when it is run like a business, allows immigrants in selectively, and does not encourage failure--also, when it ignores America's ruling class and its politically correct advice. Lee Kuan Yew even urges eugenics upon Singaporeans, and they believe in its advantages (though I'm not sure they act on it). And China's leaders are well acquainted with this model of development and governance. If they're willing and able to replicate it closely, they will so far surpass us that we'll be relegated to the pile of second rate powers with Japan, Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, and a few others.

The Left's Dance with Eugenics

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-eugenics-is-bad-and-anti-eugenics.html A good historical analysis of eugenics, with some note of its relation to religion. I'm not quite so transcendentalist as the author and there are a few points to which I take exception, but there are some fine sequences of thought here and a happy grasp of the Orwellian inversions and perversions perpetrated under cover of political correctness. My exceptions: I doubt that all pre-modern societies were as eugenic as he supposed. In most places, the great majority were rural farmers with similar reproductive success regardless of the finer differences in fitness. Also, cities were places where the elites gathered, but also places with the highest mortality rates by a substantial margin. Still, the overall trend was probably slightly eugenic. I read a paper on this subject that looked at pre-modern England and found good evidence for eugenic effects. I also disagree that PC opposition to eugenics stems from the PC elite's fear of being themselves, as high IQ people, forced by government to have more children. I think, instead, that their opposition is another case of reality-denial: they refuse to believe in human biodiversity, they are committed unequivocally to belief in human equality. And the commitment is unequivocal because it is a moral commitment, utterly divorced from any scientific facts. Charlton gives them too much credit for rationality. They are ideologues, for whom inconvenient facts are matters to be ignored or lied about.

The European Spirit and the Jews

The hatred Hitler inflicted upon Europe and which it has ever since redounded upon his dreams, the nanny-state weakness engendered by post-war prosperity, the psychological damage of the most terrible wars known to man, the fear of Jewish superiority and otherness, the complacency toward a Muslim population implicitly presumed to be inferior, the outgrowth of political correctness as a self-lacerating ideology created in response to prior evil ideologies (esp. Nazism), the nature of all ideologies and ideologues to privilege loyalty in thought and speech over truth, the failure to understand that Islam is a far more powerful and implacable ideology than "political correctness" can hope to be--in fact, the most powerful ideology Europe has ever experienced, more powerful even than Christianity ever was----All of these factors play a role in current European developments.

Europeans feared the Jews as aliens from the time of their arrival and applied to them special restrictions and, after the first few generations of occasional mixing, Christians and Jews lived as separate populations. Due to the nature of the specialized roles (esp. trade and finance) which the Jews came to monopolize, shrewdness was a characteristic more useful to Jews than to Gentiles. Also, more than the Christians, the Jews in their long exile valued book learning and rewarded the best scholars. The high value their circumstances and culture placed on shrewdness and on learning probably caused a virtuous circle in which the most successful, in terms of these characteristics, obtained more wealth and produced more children. This is called eugenics, here in the form of breeding for high intelligence. Not only are the Jews vastly overrepresented in their intellectual achievements vis-à-vis the Muslims, they have, in proportion to population, at least a 10-1 advantage over Gentiles in terms of the academic Nobels and the Fields Medals, and the more cognitively challenging the field the greater their relative advantage. Here’s a recent  paper laying out the possibility of eugenic evolutionary pressures for Ashkenazi Jews:
http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf


It is natural to fear the alien. But, when that alien is superior to you genetically and culturally--tolerance of such circumstances among the general populace is unlikely to last. Europe chose the worst solution to the social tension that arose as Jews rose to the top in the socioeconomic competition—which happened in proportion to their escape from the traditional restrictions on their activities, beginning in the eighteenth century. The best solution, perhaps, among those within the realm of human possibility, was one suggested by Nietzsche in the 1880s: the aristocratic and officer classes of the nations of Europe (and presumably other elite elements of Gentile society) should strategically intermarry with the Jews to engender the “good Europeans” who would lead a united Europe. The risk would have been the demise of Jewry as a race and culture distinct from any other. In any case, the Europeans did not have the courage for this grand vision of the future. They succumbed to petty, mindless nationalism and narrow, often brutal ideological dungeons for generations, then, post-Hitler, turned to a suicidal pacifism as an ineffectual and equally stupid repentance for the past. Nor did they consider calling a halt to their mad fantasy quest to undo the past after renouncing the potentially noble endeavor of colonialism (the end of which produced quite catastrophic results, perhaps as bad, in terms of human suffering, as the world wars which were the proximate cause of the pullback), instead they pressed on, and, entangled in their delusions, they begged, in action and not only in words, for the opportunity to submit to a reverse colonialism. They place a higher priority on attempting to atone for the past and on massaging their consciences than on actually enacting the good in life. And Hitler’s ghost laughs at these weak fools who still cower in his shadow and thereby prepare the way for a worthy successor, another visionary of the  Götterdämmerung or a conquering caliph.

How could this happen? By what perverse logic are these people guided? For centuries Europe's will to power in both the spiritual and material realms has slowly subsided in face of the combined assaults of philosophical skepticism (at least, among the elite) and increasing sensitivity to pain and to fear (characteristic of the people at large, who became, as a united conforming mass, politically significant as democracy spread). Having no intellectual elite outside of the close-minded priestly class, Islam does not suffer the first philosophical weakness, and its economic primitivism and "eye for an eye" moral-religious code keep it relatively safe from oversensitivity. Result: the Muslim will to power sees Europe as ripe for submission. It seems that the human psychological equation dictates that more stupidity and more brutality produce more will to power.

Thus, having destroyed their great chance to be led by the Jews, an authentically superior people, or by a superior mixed race, like Nietzsche’s good Europeans, the bad Europeans come instead to power and proceed to prostrate themselves before an inferior people.

Yet, just as the world wars and the Holocaust revolutionized European psychology into the submissive form we find today, there remains the possibility of another revolution. Perhaps an excess of Muslim brutality will revive Europe, sharpening its intelligence (perhaps from an exodus of Israeli Jews to newly welcoming parts of Europe), strengthening it by exposure to inescapable brutality, and replacing the weak-born and birthing quality of sensitivity with the strength-engendered and engendering quality of generosity.

Possible Improvement

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/educated-women-opting-for-motherhood/ Of course, though not mentioned here, I think it's a fair bet that dumber women who have children have more of them--so the dysgenic influence remains largely in force.