188 thoughts on “Escape From Talos IV”

1. Natural rights don’t exist. This was and is just a convenient fiction. It was used to justify the rebellion of the American colonists against the British crown.

   Nevertheless, there is an inchoate instinct or yearning in human beings for fairness, i.e. equal treatment. This is part of human nature. But for most societies, this was reserved for in-group members and for the rights of one group against another. These societies had no equal care for outsiders. It’s only Northwestern Europeans who have elevated this into a universal principle, probably due to the influence of Christianity coupled with the peculiar concern of NW Europeans for the Individual. I’m not criticizing our culture for this; it’s our culture and we need no justification for it. But it may also be our undoing. The shoes and other hostile parasitic elements residing among us have used it against us to great affect.

   But the recent abandonment of individual rights, and return to a cruder group rights doctrine, using the fancy term “disparate impact”, they have ripped off the mask leaving no doubt what their real intentions are. We have every right to fight against this pernicious doctrine regardless of the “impact.” If the so-called “woke” want to fight for it, let them strictly bear the burden, which in my mind means either separation or reconquest. I’ll take either.

2. “Today’s woke crowd takes a much simpler route by defying biological reality. The transgender stuff is a way of denying biological reality by denying fundamental properties of humans beings.”

   Once you accept blacks can be White, it’s a small step for men to be women.

3. As a sheep farmer I liked your analogy about dogs and sheep. Another behaviour of sheep that might interest you is that if you put two breeds of sheep into one paddock they will naturally self segregate.

   • Hm. Sounds like rationality is part of “sheep nature,” too.

4. Comment, on illegal immigration–could we not assign each one a few acres and a mule in some relatively fertile area and see what they make of it, rather like our 1600’s Scots-Irish-English immigrants?

   And on a lighter note, happy Paul Revere Day (last stanza of poem below):

   So through the night rode Paul Revere;
   And so through the night went his cry of alarm
   To every Middlesex village and farm, —
   A cry of defiance and not of fear,
   A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
   And a word that shall echo forevermore!
   For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
   Through all our history, to the last,
   In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
   The people will waken and listen to hear
   The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
   And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

   • You’d have garnered a few upvotes had you just left the poem and not gone full retard in the opening. These people have -plenty- of lebensraum in their home countries. What they don’t have is the raw gray matter and IQ to do anything with it. Magic dirt—> isn’t. Did you read nothing in this essay from Z?

     Likewise, I don’t think ‘Paulo Rivera’ would ride through any villages or farms nor put himself at any risk for anything. So your poem, while lovely, rings very hollow w/ the opening statement.

   • Let em’ farm Mexico.

5. Excellent essay. I believe genetic survival is the purpose of society and that any traits that are detrimental to that are to be avoided.

   Since I don’t have a lot to add to the essay because I think it hit the nail om the head, let me about unfortunate traits for survival; it can be extremely hard to say what those traits are. Let’s use big cats as an example; surely two of the most impressive big cats we know from the fossil records are the various saber tooths and the American lion. The American lion was something like a modern lion size 120 percent in height and length. Since (1.2)^3=1.728, that’s a lion 1.7 times as massive as the current boss of the Serengeti food chain. That’s a giant effing lion. The sabertooths speak for themselves; take a tiger, pump it full of anabolic steroids and give it new fangs five times bigger; voila the perfect elephant hunting cat. IOW these are the alpha luxury models of big cats. So where are they now?? Being impressive does not mean being a survivor. At current trends Afghanistan and the Congo will still be genetically the same long after the white man joins the giant prehistoric lions and sabertooths in the afterlife. So we must be doing something enormously wrong in terms of survival

   • Nature itself machinates against the white man. Since when you breed a white man with a wog, you get a wog

   • Moran ya Simba: “I believe genetic survival is the purpose of society and that any traits that are detrimental to that are to be avoided.”

     Allow me to introduce you to, “The Furry”.

     In Lily White GOP Mormon Utah, no less:

     https://tinyurl.com/54rzeb7n

     All hail The Furry.

     ===============

     Note that if you remove an “r” from The Furry, you get The Fury.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bphHHR2aVM0

   • So we must be doing something enormously wrong in terms of survival
     We are Brother and most are content to keep doing it…

6. As to replacing God, that’s a fair assessment. But does it take into account the passage of time? America may not have lasted as long as Rome but it did manage to persist albeit in reduced form for about 200 years. If you can stretch your secular empire out to last as long as your pious one isn’t that sufficient? Because every empire/culture eventually breaks down, so even if it’s not as good as a religious one could it be “good enough”?

   • America as an empire was an astonishing success. Anything that becomes, even for five minutes, the global hegemon, is not a failure.

     But I am wondering if imperial success is similar to saber teeth on a big cat (pls see my comment above); something that looks really impressive but is actually a survival sink. Maybe the smart survival move is to be inconspicuous, unimpressive and highly agressive on the home turf. The Congo and Afghanistan are not going to be demographically flooded anytime soon

7. You have to demonstrate an outrageous lack of self awareness to be both a progressive and a person who claims to believe in human equality.

   There is nothing in their entire history to demonstrate they want something other than a hierarchical system with chosen few at the top. As Orwell put it, a system where some are more equal than others.

   All of these theories have a specific intention: to provide a framework for who will be in charge and by what authority.

   You see this even in small affairs like the local HOA board or a campus student government.

   There are very few people as a percentage of society with the proper mix of intellect, physical strength, resilience, and desire necessary to run any societal or organizational construct. There’s no shortage of people with opinions on why the people in charge lack competence, but you will never see so many people checking their shoe polish as when the time comes for one of them to step up and do society’s necessary dirty work.

   And dirty work it is. Everyone hates the HOA I live in, but I’ve observed two things: given an opportunity to go on the board and fix it, they decline to volunteer. And, given a choice of disbanding it for lack of interest/support, they refuse. Why? Because they know without some form of accountability, they’ll wind up with a rat infested fire trap next door. Or worse. They hate it only in the abstract. They accept the organization as long as they don’t have to do any work.

   That’s 97% of human society.

   The political structures that result are matched to the level of control society needs to apply in order to keep things functioning. The 3% then set about creating theories that would lead to the most satisfactory answer to “who is in charge and under what authority?”

   And the answers are “me” and “because I said so”. The rest is gilded wrapping paper and window dressing.

   • “a person who claims to believe in human equality”

     I don’t necessarily see a contradiction between being basically an authoritarian elitist and *claiming* to believe in equality. It’s just a matter of adopting the kind of rhetoric that is most useful. Really, as soon as Western man abandoned all his concepts of nobility and of divinely inspired order some sort of crude socialist ideology was baked into the cake. Promising the mass of stupid people that you will loot “the rich” and hand over their wealth to the masses is simply the easiest political gambit in a morally bankrupt society. It also contains a ready made “business model” in that the way you get paid for advocating for this is to skim some of that wealth for yourself. Of course, as a “champion of the people” you will naturally be entitled to a much larger share than the people themselves.

     The specific forms of this ideology can change. It’s no surprise that old-school Marxism was the form it took in the ethnically homogeneous societies of the 19th and early 20th century. In the multi-culti cesspool of modern America it naturally takes the form of various kinds of race and tribe hustling. The former (Marxism) leads naturally to Soviet style dictatorship. The latter leads to the chaotic anarcho-tyranny we all know and love. The Man of the People doesn’t need to care what ideology justifies it, only that he gets his cut. Joe Biden (Mr. 10%) is the archetypal demigod of this order.

     • In China, the entire Biden family would wear forced signs enroute to the public execution grounds. In Russia, there would be no signs, just a bullet in the neck down at the 24 Kuznetsky Most Street. Had they thieved Iran, the Bidens would be hoisted up slowly by crane. Here in the US, our historians will write up the Bidens like they were the dead Kennedys’ Camelot restored.

       • DaBears: “Here in the US, our historians will write up the Bidens like they were the dead Kennedys’ Camelot restored.”

         Uhh, that would be, “(((our historians)))”.

8. Christians assume that human nature, and the entire planet, are fallen and flawed. Moderns (post-Enlightenment liberals, especially women) believe that human nature is good, and that external elements must be corrected (e.g., political systems, social justice).

   These conditions occurred following the rebellion of the woman — who wanted to be Equal with God, hmm — and the simpery of the man, who obeyed the woman instead of obeying God.

   Christians — whatever remnant yet remains amongst the worldly chaff of Churchianity — also reject all aspects of egalite and equality and acknowledge that all beings, including humans, are hierarchic. Following Scripture, the Son obeys the Father, the man obeys the Son, the woman obeys the man, the child obeys the woman. Anything other than this = madness and disaster.

   • Christians have fallen for baloney, and they can’t get up.

   • ray: “the man obeys the Son”

     Could you expound?

     Maybe a typo?

     Is “the Son” supposed to be Jesus?

     • Bourbon —

       Father has many, many sons but only one is chosen Son — Christ, Jeshua of Nazareth in this world.

       • as for madness & disaster there is certainly no lack down through the ages

   • The Christian believes in natural duties rather than natural rights. For example: everyone has a duty to protect himself and his family, hence, in modern times, he must have recourse to firearms. Such recourse can have some reasonable limitations (e.g., restricting access from felons) but cannot be denied in general. Since procreation is necessary to preserve the human race, those who choose to marry have a duty to procreate which cannot be denied. Non-procreative unions (e.g., homosexuals) enjoy no such protections, nor do casual, non-married sexual unions. They can be forbidden and regulated to the extent that such regulation does not create more social disorder than it prevents. A citizen has a duty to make sure that public officials are fulfilling their duties competently and faithfully, so he must be free to criticize their actions when warranted. He is not free to disseminate pornography and obscenity, since such activity has no connection to preserving the public good but rather seeks to corrupt public discourse. The basic point is that a duty-oriented society seeks the general good whereas the liberal, rights-oriented society has no such interest and in fact seeks to undermine and disrupt society.

9. Nobody understood the problem with the natural rights tradition more clearly than Hobbes. He understood that there could be no universal religious agreement, and that established religions were established by the force of the sovereign.

   The first part of his solution was to admit that yes, all men ARE created equal — insofar as they have the equal ability to kill each other and steal from each other and create a “war of all against all.”

   The second part of his solution was for these “equal” men to freely enter in to a (one-way) Social Contract and create artificial inequality by establishing the Leviathan, which he referred to as a “mortal God” whose power to make and enforce decisions and impose morality was essentially unlimited.

   For all the natural rights bullshit we hear about that is supposedly in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the fact is that we live under an imperial ZOG Leviathan that has no limits on its power. It can and will send armed stormtroopers to kick in your door at 3 a.m. and shoot you dead in your own home for some alleged or perceived infraction of some arcane minutiae — just like they did to Randy Weaver’s wife and son 30 years ago, and did to that poor airport sap in Little Rock a couple of weeks ago.

   It can and will spy on you without a warrant any time they feel like it, and the House Republicans voted to allow this to continue just last week.

   It can and will print and borrow infinite sums of fiat money and devalue your holdings though inflation.

   It can and will make war on foreign countries who never attacked or threatened us.

   It can and will force you out of a job or close your business and seize your supposedly “private” property for refusing to take the fake vaxx, or for refusing to kowtow to negroes, women, homosexuals and trannies.

   I don’t know if I necessarily LIKE Hobbes’s solution, but I have to admit he was RIGHT.

10. There is no such thing as “biological reality.”

    The word “reality” does not take or need any modifying adjectives. Reality is already inclusive of all things that exist, so there is no possibility of specifying the term that isn’t redundant. People only use this construction when they are attempting to make some kind of tendentious argument that claims a higher arity of “reality” for their hobbyhorse than what its nature really warrants. Thus, we hear a lot from HBDers about “biological reality” and we hear sometimes (rarely) from spergs, quants, and atheists about “physical reality,” but you never hear a civil engineer talk about “hydrological reality” when he’s designing a dam. Undoubtedly, the term has some kind of cognizable definition, but there is no political hay to be made from hydrology at the present time, so it it doesn’t get mentioned.

    The fact that people differ from one another is empirically true without reference to any underlying “biology.” You will find people of wildly divergent temperaments and abilities within every race, within every nation, and even within every family. Their individual proclivities are not typically thought of as being politically significant, unless some individual or group has already been politicized. This is why the tired old “dog argument” that HBDers are so fond of is specious. The question is not whether temperamental differences exist among humans, but whether those differences are of such a nature that they deserve political consideration. The answer is decidedly that they do not.

    Indeed, if you were ever looking for objective proof that HBD is pseudoscience, it can be found right here. It consists in the fact that the very style of the argumentation for it is formally invalid. HBD—and the whole of the Darwinism on which it is founded—is simply a massive exercise in affirming the consequent. It begins with an uncontroversial empirical observation, it concocts a story that implies that the observation would be made, and then it tries to argue back from the truth of the thing observed to the truth of the story.

    Example: Human differences exist. If human differences were biological in origin, then they would be observed. Therefore, human differences are biological in origin.

    Obviously, this type of argument can prove anything whatsoever. Affirming the consequent is consistent with all the facts and all the non-facts alike, so its ability to discriminate truth is exactly zero. This is not science, it is Forteanism.

    The anti-natural rights argument has another problem of a similar sort when it first denies that universal human nature is sufficient for constituting the basis of a claim to political rights, but then proceeds (as Z is doing without being aware of it) to make the very same claim on the basis of a particular human nature. This is classic Leftist nominalism, pure and undefiled. You will find precisely the same attitude among the LGBT promoters and the deniers of borders.

    The problems with HBD are so logically insurmountable and obvious that they cannot be denied by the conscience one they have been made sufficiently explicit. The fact may be gainsaid but it can no longer really be doubted. This is why HBD is doomed to fail and why I predict it will fade from the scene after a few more years, just like PUA has.

    • Fun with Trolls. “The question is not whether temperamental differences exist among humans/dogs, but whether those differences are of such a nature that they deserve [political] consideration. The answer is decidedly that they do not.

      WRONG!

      I would not put a Pitbull around an infant. I would have less trouble with a Maltese. I would not bring Somalians to Portland, Maine. I would have less trouble with Serbians.

      • And here’s where you guys go wrong. While you’re in the clouds spending all kinds spinning intellectual explanations for the world that we live in, you forget the reality on the ground. Somalians aren’t necessarily bad people. In fact, not knowing much about the particular history of that region, I think you can logically assume that they are related both biologically and culturally to Ethiopians, who adopted Christianity before Europeans did.

        Christianity may or may not be your baseline for cultural compatibility, but in terms of similarity and cultural ways and value systems, as it relates to different groups of people interacting with each other, they’re fine. The trouble is not that these people are necessarily genetically inferior. The trouble is with their cultural quirks and behaviors. Simply bringing too many of them and trying to mash them with Western culture is like oil and water.

        People also like to fixate on IQ scores. Some peasant in Africa with a bone through his nose wearing a grass skirt isn’t necessarily an imbecile because he neither has the experience nor the cultural background information to do well on standardized tests. Sometimes people need time to acclimate to the way things are done in another society before you can expect performance on things like tests.

        The scatterbrained peasant brain isn’t necessarily stupid (it isn’t necessarily smart, either). That person simply might not be acclimated to framing things in the way things are framed as westerners.

        The problem is not “necessarily” the people, it’s the number. Small numbers are fine. Large numbers are what gives you problems.

        • “Somalians aren’t necessarily bad people”

          They probably are, though.

          • Somalians who are good (compared to other Somalians) may desire to leave Somalia which, judging by their emmigation, is not good, but are so alien to the recent 10k evolved nature of whites they find themselves lacking in this new environment and, as with American blacks, is resented with the considerable encouragement of our own spiteful elite, which we are not prepared to reject due to our altered nature of cooperation. Democratic equality is the sauce that delivers the poison.

            Garet Garret–To the revolutionary mind the American vista must have been almost as incredible as Genghis Khan’s first view of China–so rich, so unaware. Why should anyone fear government?
            Its cruel and cynical suspicion of any motive but its own was a reflection of something it knew about itself. Its voice was the voice of righteousness; its methods therefore were more dishonest than the simple ways of corruption.

          • Are they even “people” at all?

        • I’ve been at this place a long time and if there’s anything the vast majority of us understands, it’s “the reality on the ground.”

          • But do you? I was sitting at McDonalds once doing some paperwork to get out of my home dungeon. Table behind me had a few high schoolers. They were joking about being Somalian. Dressed normal, acted much better than our home grown blacks. The girl even sounded like a little like a “Valley Girl.”

            It’s easy to be taken aback by backwards people who don’t bathe and wear headwraps, but does that capture the entire story? I think not.

            Here in Minneapolis II, Somalis are even starting to work their way into politics. Of course I laugh at the Somali soman running against the incumbent white Republican because of the mop on her head and wish there weren’t so many of them here, but does that make them bad people? Imbecilic? Culturally incompatible?

          • Tempo, I don’t doubt that many of the imported Somalis are a cut above your typical ghetto feral. Not exactly a high bar. Regardless, most everyone, even murderous psychopaths, are nice and agreeable 98-99% of the time. So your experience at the next booth in McDonald’s is irrelevant.

            What is the point of a small number if one does not intend to turn it into a large number?

        • Way too subjective. While claiming that you oppose high-falutin philosophy because it is too abstract and divorced from reality, you simply argue for subjectivity without the jargon. A house divided comes to mind.

          • Maybe, maybe not. It seems to me that humans thrived as hunter-gatherers. Subjectivity, having your wits about you, intuition, are all important traits to survive and thrive as one.

        • You may have a point in that Somalis might not be bad people. IQ aside, their problem is that they are incompatible. That might be purely an acquired trait, sure, but until that trait goes away, their culture simply does not work with ours.

          I agree that culture is way too complex and fickle to be primarily genetic. But because of the way culture perpetuates itself, it might as well be genetic.

        • “Some peasant in Africa with a bone through his nose wearing a grass skirt isn’t necessarily an imbecile because he neither has the experience nor the cultural background information to do well on standardized tests.

          Sometimes people need time to acclimate to the way things are done in another society before you can expect performance on things like tests.”

          Opposed to the am’rican africans who are indistinguishable from whites in their iq test results.

          We all know if whites disappear from USA, acclimatized blacks will maintain the infrastructure just as well as whites did, I mean it’s obvious just by looking at their neighbourhoods.

          I also bet russian cities > american cities has nothing to do with the genetic makeup of the people living there.

          • Are Russian cities really better than American cities? That couple who moved to get away from trannies was a little disappointed with real life in Russia.

            Of course we in the Balkans are the West Virginia of the Slavs, so it may not be a direct comparison, but while life there isn’t awful, it certainly isn’t as good as here. Not yet, anyway. I compare what I see in the cities to what we call the Hilltop. Lower middle class whites. Certainly not awful, but not so pretty to look at either. (There are exceptions of course.)

          • don’t see russian cities in in most dangerous cities in the world list, but there’s a lot of US cities.

            but you’re welcome to move into the projects, it’s cheap and there’s lots of acclimatized blacks there for you to befriend.

        • Let me tell you a story about IQ. Most people would agree that you need a high level of intelligence to be an NFL Quarterback, right?

          They were laughing at CJ Stroud, high performing of the Houston Texans, because he had a low score in the intelligence tests the NFL makes these draft prospects think. He scored in the 19th percentile or something like that.

          Turns out he has test taking anxiety. Whatever, you can have ADD, dyslexia or maybe even the written word moves too slowly for your brain to process. So what you score maybe may be a good overall bench mark of your intellect, it can’t tell the entire story. I would argue the same applies when you’re trying to give some goat-herder and his spawn IQ tests before being acclimated with the way we do things here.

          • TempoNick: Sweet Iesu, you really are going to trot out every standard trope. “The tests are biased.” “He has anxiety.” “They just have different habits.”

            Let me strongly urge Zman to please make the troll go away, and urge other commenters not to respond. It only encourages him to pretend he’s having an intellectual discussion – like Sailer’s court Jew and Asian.

          • Bullshit. Test-taking anxiety is just another means of excusing stupidity.

            When I took the GRE–back in 1994, before it was dumbed down–I was petrified because if I did poorly there was no way I’d get into grad school and be able to pursue my dream–bloody fool that I was–of becoming a history prof. I was so nervous that I was shaking when I took that test. But did that test anxiety cause me to bitch the test? Not a bit of it. I blew the dam’ thing out of the water. If you’re bright you can answer the questions and solve the problems. If you’re not, you can’t. So you can stuff that test anxiety crapola in your pipe and smoke it.

          • I don’t know. Is this supposed to be a white nationalist page? I’ve been following it off and on for years and it is edgy, but I never thought of it as a place exclusively for skinheads to gather. I doubt that the host does either. To me this is about being real and the reality of what I say has more truth than not.

            If you show a Rorschach to a goat herder from Kazakhstan, do you think he’s going to know what to do? He’ll probably tell you to stop wasting his time and go screw yourself.

            Exercising the brain is not that much different than exercising your body. Sure, there are natural variations of skills and intelligence between one person and another, but assuming you have the gray matter given to you by God, if you aren’t put in a position where you been able to train and hone your thought processes, you’re probably not going to do as well on testing as you could.

            It’s just like anything else in life. If you don’t practice golf and hone your skills, you’re not going to win the US Open regardless of what kind of DNA God gave you.

          • Utter bullshit. I took the GRE back in 1994, before it was dumbed down on behalf of diversity, and I was absolutely petrified. If I did less than exceptionally well on that test, I would not get into grad school and have an opportunity to pursue my dream of becoming a history prof–bloody fool that I was. The pressure I placed on myself was very intense, and when I sat down to take the test, I was literally shaking.

            So, because of test anxiety, I bitched the GRE, right? Not a bit of it. I blew that sucker out of the water.

            All this jazz about test anxiety and stereotype threat is just more Leftist nonsense concocted to obscure the reality of racial difference in intelligence. And now it’s gotten to the point of simply doing away with standardized tests altogether. Because in the conflict between merit and diversity, civilization and savagery, the latter must always prevail.

        • TempoNick: How quaint that you repeat the “it’s not race, it’s culture” fallacy here, when it has been definitively stated and agreed (by both Zman and commenters) that culture is downstream from genetics.

          The problem IS the people – and their genetics and the culture ensuing therefrom – AND the number. They are alien in mien, thought, and deed, and none of them belong here.

          And yes, certain cultures – and genetics – are demonstrably inferior based on criteria as diverse as economic efficiency and production, political and social representation and order, and personal freedom of thought, speech, and association. Certain races and their innate physical and mental abilities are best suited to certain environments and systems.

          It is as simple us “us” and “not us.” Reality is not going away, no matter how hard you deny it.

        • “The problem is not “necessarily” the people, it’s the number. Small numbers are fine. Large numbers are what gives you problems.”

          This can’t be a serious comment… 7.5% of our population is responsible for nearly all murder and rape. It’s even less than that if you factor in the age ranges. Don’t give me this bullshit about small numbers. Rotten people are bad, whether you have 10 of them or 100,000 of them, the vast majority of them are going to behave the same. Only the scope of their behavior changes with the numbers.

          Think about what you said – “a larger number of these not so bad people creates massive problems”. This is literally the equivalent of saying, “I know a black guy and he’s nice. They’re not all bad.”

          • Let me tell you another story and I don’t know where this fits into the discussion, but one of my cousins-in-law is a farmer in Iowa. He goes to Africa to hunt game all the time. Here’s what observation when he goes there is that blacks are nothing special there athletically like they are here. They’re average just like everybody else.

            In other words, they weren’t shoving their doctors, lawyers, teachers and engineers on the slave ships. They gave us their most physically capable people. People who could do the work that they were being purchased for.

            Maybe the subset we have might not have the intellect. Or maybe because intellect hasn’t traditionally been valued in the black community, maybe those skills haven’t been honed and developed.

            Standardized testing does not pick up on all these things. I don’t know all the answers, but whenever I hear somebody say that the IQ of immigrants is lower just because of testing geared toward Americans and westerners, people need to be smarter about all the factors involved.

            By the way, I’m the child of immigrants and I always aced these kinds of tests. I didn’t do anything special to prepare for them, I just took them and did fine. But as I got older and the tests got harder I needed to practice first before going into test taking situations. But I still don’t think it’s all black and white, no pun intended.

        • You guys kill me.
          Around the fire in 2045:
          Thanks for that ID.
          Ok you’re up next Tempo. Can you expound on his thoughts.

          Just kidding. Frank get the rope I tire of this.

      • I wouldn’t have a problem at all with pitbulls and kids. If we look at the numbers, Cocker Spaniels are the noggers of the dog world and most likely to indulge in unprovoked attacks. The same attacks on pitbulls is exactly the same as the one on gun ownership.

        If we look at the pitbull attacks and study them, definite patterns emerge. The vast majority of vicious dogs are owned by males in the 18~24 age bracket. The vast majority of them have criminal records or are otherwise ‘known to law enforcement”. The vast majority of pitbulls involved in unprovoked attacks will show signs of animal abuse.

        And – when the animals are confiscated or destroyed… their former owners just go out and get a Doberman or a Rottie. Genetics may be real… but so is environment.

        Equality and natural rights can exist – but only in certain highly regulated environments. Without proper protection and enforcement we have only the Law Of The Jungle…regardless of what people would rather call it.

        • Cockers more likely than pits to attack unprovoked? Pffft. Please. The top just blew off my BS detector, just like it does when I encounter the tripe dispensed by big media.

    • There is a lot of truth to what you say about language. But it depends on how you look at it. When a normal person says he “ain’t seen nothing” technically that’s a double negative that means he *has* seen something. But the force of the double negative adds up to a powerful NO. It’s the same with biology, Intelligent Dasain. Talking about biological reality fulfills a need in language, and that makes it valid. ∆

    • A few thoughts:
      1) While I agree with the concept of concrete reality, would you not agree that perception of reality results in that need to at least appreciate that what we label “reality” features, partly, from subjectivity? The perception of color writ large illustrates my point. While I do not argue for solipsism or nominalism, accepting some level of subjectivity is necessary to approximate “reality” as we experience it. And, mind you, I just referenced Johnson’s appeal to the stone yesterday or the day before.
      2) If the cause is not genetic, what would you label? To further clarify, I do not believe in humans evolving from apes. Man walked on the moon (probably). We spend so much time in a debased, bestial view of humanity (as a result of alchemical processing, I believe), that people lose sight of the godliness of humans (in the sense of ”made in His image”). We hear people talk about how much apes are like humans so often that many lose sight of just how far beyond, not in a continuum, but on a distinct ontological level, humans are from any other animal. No animal even comes close. I just reread Hamlet, and this issue is on both his and my mind (i.e., where human lie on this scale). But could you not acknowledge that, even assuming a single ancestor, the time spent apart as distinct groups has resulted in distinct characteristics, genetically, that make the populations behave differently?
      3) You compare abstract generalization with more specific generalization (the ”particular human nature” part). I understand the formal error of this in argumentation, but argumentation is symbols. The practical reality, to use that word again, accepts that the attempt to symbolically navigate the world is not always feasible. A formal fallacy may prove valid in practice. Back to the appeal to the stone, I think there comes a point when you separate a heap into its particulars and accept that something has changed without being able to argue formally, by recognizing what practically is versus what theoretically may be. To wit: there is a difference between generalizing about all people versus a group of people.

      • I would agree that reality is objective and that we perceive it subjectively, yes. I think that’s pretty clearly the case. I would hastened to add, however, that although perception is necessarily subjective, the reality that we perceive subjectively is objective reality. We are capable of grasping things in their real essence even though we do not have Godlike knowledge of them exactly as they are.

        To your second point, i.e. whether human differences should be characterized as genetic or not, my view on this question is that it is baited and therefore it needs to be defused somewhat before I can answer it.

        The problem is that altogether too much is being made of genetics here. Of course human beings differ genetically. That is one of the differences; it is not the root cause of all of the differences. You would need to be a genetic reductionist to make the latter claim, and genetic reductionism is a highly flawed materialistic ideology, not a science.

        What is a gene? A gene is a nucleotide sequence, and its purpose is to serve as the scaffolding for constructing proteins. It is not a “code.” It is not a “blueprint for life.” It is simply a bodily organ, like a pancreas or a liver. The zeal with which modern materialists try to read the secrets of life into this molecule has all the characteristics of a paranoid person stringing random facts together into an elaborate conspiracy theory. Their conspiracy is ever reinforced by the fact that they have real facts to point to, but that doesn’t make the story any less fantastic. Yes, the facts happened; the story did not.

        Yes, DNA builds proteins. No, it is not the determiner of one’s character.

        As I have said many times before, a belief in HBD entails a materialist metaphysics. If materialism is wrong, then HBD cannot be right. And you’ll notice that the more doctrinaire HBD proponents are at their most ferocious whenever you deny their Darwinian and materialist precedents, which is an important clue as to what the real purpose and objective of that school of thought is. HBDers are more interested in HBD as a bolster for Darwinism than they are in HBD as a consequence of Darwinism, because the underlying strategy is to use materialism as a defense against authority.

        • The question was not baited. I believe in an elan vitale or some other ineffable idea. I agree about the core assumption of HBD as materialism (I would specifically qualify as physicalism). But, I would also suggest that the physical processing of sensory data is impacted, and thus the subjective experience, by the genetic scaffolding you label. I have no need of the biology lesson, but, since you mentioned the subject, I would argue that what you call scaffolding is inaccurate, and that code is a better word. I understand your point is that the “code” is used by some to implant the essence of life there and not in divine sources, but your metaphor is off, for scaffolding is 1) External to the thing itself, and 2) Responds to the thing being created, and not the genesis. Perhaps code is not the greatest word, either, but I think, from a creationist perspective, it better counters materialism by highlighting the complexity of the process and the intentionality of the origin, the garlic to the HBD’s vampiric beliefs.

    • “There is no such thing as “biological reality.”

      You crack me up.

      From Ancient India/Egypt to present day west, the trend is always the same.
      Light skinned folk create high society, dark skinned folk come in, population changes it genetic makeup, country becomes shithole.

      You’ll never hear of the opposite happening.

      Whites and east asians go to to Dubai = futuristic city
      Whites go to Am’rica = industrial empire

      Arabs & blacks go to White countries = Watch yo’ kis, watch yo’ mama cause they be raping everybody.

      • The Hiroshima/Detroit meme springs to mind.

    • Oooh, I can play too. There was a man walking along who heard a loud BANG, followed a fraction of a second later, by the sight of a large store window suddenly shattering. Everyone around him suddenly became very agitated and started ducking and running to get behind various obstacles and out of the main street. Our man remained calm though. He knew better than to affirm the consequent. Windows, you see, break all the time for all sorts of reasons, and lots of things make a loud bang sound. There’s no reason to invent a narrative about anyone on a rooftop with a rifle.

      Just then our hero’s head exploded.

    • What’s wrong with the “the tired old “dog argument”?
      Within 60 seconds of putting my sister-in-law’s Corgi in the fenced back yard with my 50 pound doodles, the little demon had them whimpering in the corner. Corgi’s bred to herd and Doodle’s bred to love.

11. “This is the logical defect of the natural rights argument. The fans of this make assumptions about nature that are counter to what we actually know about nature and what we know about nature argues against their universals.”
    ———————————————————————————

    Is it, now?

    Not saying you’re wrong, Z. This is big brain stuff and I am biased by my religious background. It is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding you… but… here goes:

    If you accept that the only purpose for Man is to eat, sleep, excrete, fight and reproduce like all the other animals, I could accept your argument. But I see flaws in your stance too. All humans ARE equal if that is the metric you measure your telos by. Blacks survive in a variety of environments quite well. They breed like flies, they are violently tribal and survive daily amidst famine, pestilence, endless tribal wars, and grinding poverty… and they do all of that with a 65 average IQ. One might argue that blacks are even better at surviving such conditions than Whitey. For this viewpoint to hold, you have to assume that intelligence and sentience are mere byproducts of the the basic drives common to all living organisms.

    The problem I have with all that is that intelligence is an explosive hole in classical evolution theory. It’s like the appearance of an atomic bomb in a battlespace filled with muskets and cannons. In evolutionary terms humans went from hunter/gatherers to cultivation, written languages and technology – virtually over night. We ourselves are in a similar situation today; my own grandfather was born in age before flight, the automobile and penecillin.

    But I digress – I posit that the argument can be made that we were given intelligence with the expectation that we were meant to DO something with it. Intelligence is something far in excess of the needs of simple survival. My personal belief is that purpose is to make ourselves better human beings.

    Christian faith is one of the few ways to do this. Religion is another atomic bomb in the evolutionary process. It gives us a way to work together, in a relative state of happiness, assimilate our enemies rather than killing them – and putting them to useful work so that they can strengthen themselves. All neoliberalism and progressivism is – is a perverted attempt to do all these things without God… and the people involved with that are destroying themselves in the process. Equality is their way of taking the short cut and bypassing all the work required to be a “good human being”.

    If we are to use Talos IV as the metaphor for our day and age…I would say our place in it is that of the keepers of the menagerie… and we are largely abdicating our responsibilities.

    • I was more or less with you right up until the end there.

      Cain had God dead to rights. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” If that was His intent, He could have just replied, “Of course you are!”, but, no, His answer is just that He knows what Cain did.

      I think Christianity has long taken the wrong lesson from that. If anything, it should be closer to the Prime Directive than White Man’s Burden.

      • I am not happy with this line of thought either Steve and readily admit I could be full of beans. There are any number of cans of worms that must be opened up and sorted out as you point out. God may not have answered Cain’s question directly but He did say that he knew what Cain had done – and that it was understood that what he had done was wrong.

        What does being your brother’s keeper actually mean? To some it means looking after the weak and impoverished; yet we have done that in spades for blacks as an example… and all we have are more and more impoverished resentful blacks to show for it. So desperate are we for a win in the equality experiment that we are no longer discriminating against stupidity, incompetence and criminality. We tolerate it which clearly makes us an accomplice. I would argue that being your brother’s keeper is caring for him. That in turn means applying rebuke and correction for him when he strays… and now in our fallen world… that is a hate crime. In the absence of alternatives maybe you are right – all we can do is look after ours and ourselves and stay out of the areas where stupid people do stupid things and win stupid prizes?

        All I know for sure is that there is a God and/or a supreme being of some sort. I can feel it. And I know that we are here in this mortal coil for a purpose that goes beyond rutting, eating and sleeping.

        Your guess as to the meaning of life is as good as mine.

12. One of the most striking aspects of libs and other sundry moderns is their REFUSAL to acknowledge the existence of any sort of biological reality in humans. It’s all social construct. We are all “nurtured” into existence and our bodies, minds, and spirits our made of 100% nurture. If there is any sort of material bodily matter, it’s all the same between races and sexes. We’re all naturally good, and if somebody was ever bad it was because of a bad system put in place by a “racist.”

    I’ve long ago stopped wasting my breath debating. They cannot hear nor see. This belief is, among others madnesses, is their religion. It is their politics. And under it all, it is their weapon to impose social constructs to their benefit.

    • And yet…CELEBRATE DIVERSITY, or else! But we all know Leftists are completely unconcerned with their own hypocrisy, inconsistency and illogic.

      • Celebrate diversity!…..but don’t go too far by pointing out the diversity in test scores, behavior, criminality, impulsiveness, etc……

      • “Bake the cake” is the new “celebrate diversity!”

    • “I’ve long ago stopped wasting my breath debating. They cannot hear nor see.”

      They can can see and hear the Television. Regardless, you are correct not to waste your breath; You cannot overcome years of relentless programming from kindergarten to the evening news.

13. You’ve nailed the thing that bugs me most about this “natural rights” stuff. It is explicitly designed to take God out of the picture. It has to be. It comes from a very specific historical moment, the Thirty Years’ War, in which Europeans finally realized that it is impossible to win a religious war (the Thirty Years’ War is the culmination of an entire charming period of more than a century that pros shorthand as “the Period of the Wars of Religion”).

    IF the ruler’s legitimacy rests on his being anointed by God — as was the case for 1400 years at that point; they didn’t call it the Holy Roman Empire for nothing — there can be no peace with any ruler that doesn’t share your religion. Even a ceasefire is sinful — you’re cutting a deal with heretics, and didn’t we just expend enormous effort for 100 straight years burning every heretic we could catch at the stake? (The crime of witchcraft is explicitly heresy).

    The only path to peace, then, is to set the state’s legitimacy on a strictly secular basis. That was Hobbes’s project. Hobbes was the original “I Fucking Love Science” guy; he thought his “political science” was exactly that — political science. If we base the state on nothing but natural facts about human existence, we can finally have peace with rulers of different faiths, because you’re not compromising with Satan, you’re merely doing a deal with the People’s Representative (their “corporate person,” in Hobbes’s Latinate terminology).

    Very well, then: either Nature has a telos or it doesn’t. If it does, Mr. Natural Rights Guy, you must explain what it is, without reference of any kind to anything greater than Nature (and without resorting to pantheism, and good luck). If it doesn’t, you must establish that also. Until then, it’s just question-begging.

    • It is hard to imagine a more profoundly religious belief than natural rights, hence we are heretics subject to a digital (at best) auto de fe.

    • Espousing a different religion isn’t the same thing as heresy. The latter, in the eyes of prelates, is a far more serious offense.

      • But that’s the thing: Lutheranism WAS heresy to Catholics, and vice versa. It’s only after the Peace of Westphalia (and all the “natural rights” type of stuff encoded in it) that one could say “they’re different religions.” That’s why there was no other way to end the Thirty Years’ War — European monarchs could, and frequently did, cut deals with the Infidel Turk. But you cannot show heretics even a hint of mercy.

      • Since no one is arguing for reform radical equalitarianism, you are correct.

    • The atheist formulation of natural rights, yes. But natural rights implicit in half of the 10 Commandments. Thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness/covet. Inherent in the notion of stealing being wrong is the notion of property and ownership. Even the Golden Rule and the Second Great Commandment are generalizations of natural rights.

      It’s not so much a rejection of God’s Law, but an adaptation of God’s Law for those who don’t believe in God.

      • “Commands” and “rules” are not “rights.” They tend to be quite the opposite.

        • Agreed. Commandments are all about the individual. They come in the form of “Thou shalt not.” “Natural rights” can all be restated as “The government shalt not.” Big, big difference.

          Truly Western political philosophy emerged after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, and for 500 years or so it revolved around the question of “How shall the Italian city states preserve their de facto liberty against the de jure rule of the Holy Roman Emperor?” Milan is in Lombardy; Lombardy is part of the HRE; but Milan is not going to subordinate itself to the Holy Roman Empire no matter what the Codex Justinian has to say about it.

          It’s not easy to do — many thousands of pages were written on it — but because they shared a common understanding of Scripture it could remain a theological battle, to be settled in conferences, rather than a military battle (though of course it often became a military battle). What “rights” do subjects have vis-a-vis their sovereigns? It’s not an easy question, but when you’re all working from the same text you’re not required to kill the other guy if you disagree with him.

          If he’s a heretic, though, your entire orientation towards government changes. The heretic has no rights — he’s the avowed enemy of all humankind. But if he’s also your sovereign….

          • “Natural rights” can all be restated as “The government shalt not.”

            Ah. I see now the misunderstanding.

            Natural rights do not in any way involve government. They only involve how one person is “allowed” to interact with another. That includes a person claiming to have some authority over you by dint of him wearing the silly hat of government.

            No one has a natural right to life. You can’t very well shake your fist at the floodwaters and demand that it spare you because of your rights. What you actually have is nothing more, nothing less, than the right not to be killed by another person, which is the flip side of “thou shalt not kill.”

    • Philosophy—not the life advice kind but the tradition starting with Greece—is Our Thing and it has been for a long time, so we’ve lost the sense that it’s a very weird way to talk about politics. Other people’s polities don’t talk about principles and axioms and “human nature” and crap because they do not and probably cannot imagine that actual observable hierarchy is justified by or subject to another invented invisible hierarchy *of words*.

      Globohomo is a reversion of governmentality (ugly word) to incontrovertible, unreflective will—a targeted cure for the disease of Enlightenment (whiteness). It’s right-wing!

      • Globohomo is pretending. That’s why it’s satanic.

    • Spitballing: they replaced religion with reason but kept the universality, which is what they were fighting over. Fast forward a couple of centuries, you get devastating wars over ideology.

      Europe likes to destroy itself over the Truth, apparently. We Americans brought the proclivity with us.

      • I guess universality is kind of baked into reason, as it is in Christianity to a great extent, but not necessarily religion as a whole. Seems significant, idk.

    • I’m content to admit that ultimately there’s going to be some mystical juju that justifies the political order. Some forms of juju are better than others too. High Church Christianity is better than Congolese or Haitian Voodoo. Also some political orders are “more right” than others. Whatever you call whatever Saddam’s Baath dictatorship was worse than the government of Texas for example.

      When choosing a socio-religio-political juju you need to have an idea of what kinds of behaviors you want to encourage and discourage and how “high” the level of civilization you want. Obviously there are certain forms of juju such as History that are really dangerous. I don’t mean the study of history but the deified History of every Leftist from Marx to the girl in the back of the class with pink hair and problem glasses. You’ve also got the screwy conception of Human Rights which, in it’s most woke forms, means that no one, anywhere, is ever allowed to say anything bad about anyone without committing some sort of hate crime. I’d go so far as to say that virtually ALL modern forms of juju are as dangerous to their users and victims as freebasing fentanyl through a plutonium crackpipe. The user will kill himself – and everyone around him.

      None of this means that juju is always bad. There needs to some of what Kurt Vonnegut called Soma, I believe – harmless untruths. Vonnegut was fairly based too. Harrison Bergeron was not a very PC story.

14. While awaiting doggie Thomas Aquinas, pick up a copy of Chesterton’s “Thomas Aquinas”. It is a Cliff’s notes version of some of the philosophy our host references.

15. The problem with the opening assertion you cite (Rufo’s assertion of an order to humanity) is that he never genuinely investigates this order. He, as Z often notes, assumes the morality of the progressive without assertion. I, as I often note, point out the failure to employ inductive reasoning. Any reasonable person, objectively observing the behavior of groups of humans and drawing general principles inductively, would learn two things:
    1) Different groups are different.
    2) Some are better than others.
    This is why I call this era the death of inductive reasoning. All the big moral questions are answered by the beautiful people, and those answers are implanted in the minds of the proles through the mass media (what I consider to be the real role of the mass media) from birth. Everything is deductive reasoning based on given general principles; e.g. Major Premise: Everything is racist. Minor Premise: This is an underpass. Conclusion: The underpass is racist.
    See Pete Buttigieg’s press conference recently.
    Any facts, in the form of observation, that would challenge the conclusion will simply be dismissed, for we live in the era of the death of inductive reasoning.

    • Yes. Assertions based on emotion are seen as truths now. This will not stand because it cannot stand. Reality can be mocked but it remains reality. We live in a profoundly religious age and it will lead to darkness.

16. You sound more open to evolutionary psychology than I once thought, Z.

    “Humans around the world have evolved different ways of organizing themselves to increase their safety and security, just as their physical form evolved to their environment.”

    Evolution indeed is more than genetic mutations. Behavior evolves as well, lest peoples die. Group strategies are necessary.

    • Group strategies are necessary…
      Yes yes they are I wonder if the dissidents will wake up to that fact before it’s to late…

17. Maybe I’m too harsh but when I see rufo use these big fancy words, I’m like:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6UI79pLEM&pp=ygUUVGhlcmVzIHRoYXQgZmFnIHRhbGs%3D

18. A very, very, very hard fact of nature.

    Civilization kills off evolutionary culling and thereby the weak and stupid multiple without end. And in an environment of affluence and plenty, the most effective survival mechanism for the weak and stupid is to become a True Believer and rely upon the generosity of the productive.

    The deluded crusader who believes that his truth is the only truth is a real and present danger because he lacks the mental flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. He becomes a dependent parasite as opposed to an innovative problem solver.

    In our present state of civilized society, our instinct is engage with this individual and debate the argument in service to gaining some higher understanding and therefore a “correct” endpoint of belief. And this notion is both hubris and a conceit. Here is why that is the case.

    The parasite is stupid and his survival depends on remaining stupid. He cannot be “cured” with words, no matter how persuasive. There has to be a gauntlet that incentives improvement. In the natural environment of our ancestors, stupid got you dead at a young age. That is a foundational driver that is essential to species success and longevity.

    • “The parasite is stupid and his survival depends on remaining stupid. He cannot be “cured” with words, no matter how persuasive. There has to be a gauntlet that incentives improvement. In the natural environment of our ancestors, stupid got you dead at a young age.”

      Truer words have never been spoken.

19. “As Greg Cochran explained in The 10,000 Year Explosion, settled life rewards and punishes different human behaviors than pastoral life and especially hunter-gatherer life. That means the organizational behavior is not entirely learned, but a part of our genetic code that defines every human.”

    I don’t see that the second sentence follows from the first nor that the desire/compulsion to pass on one’s genes via reproduction is inherent in human nature. This sounds like post hoc ergo propter hoc. Maybe babies simply result, on occasion, from intercourse.

    Also the liberal ideology presents equality as an ideal not as something inherent in human nature or any social organization. Forcing the issue via various policies and makeshifts doesn’t re-route the ideal to an assumption about human nature.

    Henry Ford may have accurately stated the non-ideological telos when he supposedly said, “History is just one damned thing after the next.”

    • Whether the baby survives, or at least enough of them, determines whether the tribe does. Genetically encoded behavior is necessary for this to happen.

    • I don’t see that the second sentence follows from the first..

      It doesn’t. That’s why I ordered the Cochrane book because they probably make the case, even if it isn’t possible to summarize in the middle of an essay about something else.

      Assuming they present genetic evidence at all, I’m guessing its going to be how settling down selected for certain existing traits, not that somehow the right mutations happened at the right time.

    • This is basic biology. Select for a trait over a long enough period of time and that genes for that trait become the dominant genes and the genes for that which is selected against will disappear. The reason Europeans have different organizational habits than sub-Saharan Africans is the same reason Europeans have fair skin and various eye colors, while Africans have dark skin and brown eyes. It is also why your Dachshund will never be a good herding dog.

      • This is basic biology. Select for a trait over a long enough period of time and that genes for that trait become the dominant genes…

        If and only if it really is a genetic trait. Possibly an epigenetic trait. Otherwise we are in the realm of what is popularly (if incorrectly) called Lamarckism.

        • Ironically, the concept of “epigenetic trait” is modern Lamarckism.

          • To some extent. Epigenetics is much more limited than traditional Lamarckianism. And still not well understood even in its limited form. Even a behavior as simple as knowing which fork to use is way beyond what we currently think epigenetics can explain. A more general understanding like knowing right from wrong is right out.

20. Another way of saying what Z is saying is that while, yes, human nature exists, it is far too threadbare to serve as a sufficiently puissant social adhesive for a society containing equal numbers of Icelanders and Matabele. It is also insufficient to structure a new world order.

    In what does human nature really consist? Yes, we cooperate to secure food and shelter for the group, but certain animals do the same thing. To my mind, the clearest, most undeniable component of human nature is an appreciation of art, and especially music. Now the music could be a Borodin symphony or a guy banging a drum with a stick. It could be a Tintoretto canvas or stick figures scratched on the wall of a cave. Regardless, it is music and it is art and it is uniquely created and appreciated by all human tribes. But beyond this, I’m hardpressed to descry much of significance that unites us. And if my minimalist conception of human nature is correct, then attempting to tease political order from it is a fool’s errand.

    We are far more different than alike, and our political arrangements should reflect that reality.

    • Human nature consists in being a rational animal.

      • Where the math for this? Since the authority for nature is math, any claims resting on nature must come with a mathematic proof. Please post your proof when you have time.

        • Magic trumps math, apparently.

        • Adherents of natural rights would argue that just because individual people are ignorant of a mathematical proof does not make that proof invalid. (I think Aristotle made this point with reference to geometric proofs for scalene and right triangles — just because someone does not know that the angles add up to 180 degrees does not mean that they don’t).

          So yes, man is capable of being a rational animal, but that is no guarantee that he will actually use reason.

          Now, admittedly, there is an extremely wide variation, the 65 IQ Australian aborigine is hardly capable of using reason the way a 130 IQ Scotsman is.

          But he is still able to use reason to throw a boomerang at a monkey…

          • But he is still able to use reason to throw a boomerang at a monkey…

            Is that reason, instinct, or more of monkey see monkey do type of thing…

          • They would be wrong. If nature is you authority, then you have to show the math, as math is the god of nature. Now, if you reject that and say god is the god of nature, that is fine, but you are not really arguing from nature. Your authority is god, however you may define god.

            That is a much better argument for natural rights. If you think man was made by God and is therefore the property of God and that is the basis of your rights argument, I am okay with it. You could very well be right. Of course, when you pick up one end of the stick you pick up the other. A theological argument for rights comes with a lot of other stuff as well.

          • Now, admittedly, there is an extremely wide variation, the 65 IQ Australian aborigine is hardly capable of using reason the way a 130 IQ Scotsman is.

            You just committed the No True Scotsman…

          • And baboons are just rational enough to insert a stick into a termite mound, remove the stick, and ingest the tasty insects. That and the boomerang are far more akin in terms of sophistication than the boomerang and the space shuttle.

          • “Rational” refers to the abstract (i.e. the non-sensory) faculty of the intellect. The ability to think abstractly—to hold a concept in one’s mind rather than just a phantasm—is an ability that humans have and that no other animal possesses. It is evidenced by the fact that humans use language and no other animal does.

            If you have language, then you have reason. Whether you reason about things well or poorly is nothing to the point. The difference is one of kind, not one of degree.

            Yes, man is the rational animal. I’m not sure why this is even contentious.

          • @ID

            I reject postulate A) that language is coterminous with rationality, and B) that rationality is universal to the human species.

            A): Language is merely an advanced communicative tool. It is a chain of signs (words) signifying referrents. Now langauge certainly holds the potential, in the hands of a rational person, of structuring abstract concepts, but the rationality is prior to the structuring. At any rate, although language may be unique to human beings (such a banality), it is not itself evidence of rationality.

            B): In claiming rationality on behalf of all humanity, you are betraying a rationalist bias that may very well be unique to Western man. This is perhaps the singular area in which I agree with the poststructuralists. The various peoples of the world occupy thought-spaces that may be rational, but most often are not. It is a conceit to aver that Western rationality is universal. There are different–symbolical, ritualistic, spiritualistic, folkloristic, etc.–ways of conceiving the world in which we live. Rationalism isn’t the only way, although it may be the best. I suggest you read what the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has to say about Captain Cook’s encounter with the Hawaiians. I basically abominate the man, but he’s probably right.

      • More like “rationalizing.”

      • Well, you’ve effectively expelled negroes from the society of man. Why didn’t I ever think of that?

        • I often think of Neanderthals. Very big brained Neanderthals. They survived for 600,000 years though difficult conditions including six ice-ages. Impressive. Yet in their evolved nature brute strenth was a primary factor in their survival. They did not develop sophisticated tools for hunting perhaps because they simply didn’t need them, their strength was two and one have times greater than Sapien, leaving their minds were unlike Sapien, who inherited the world because they were weak and therefore required much more of creativity and cunning which eventually prepared, some of them, for calculus, a then trait utterly useless in that world. Neanderthal too would detest this world. Art and pretensions in equal mix.

          It is Europeans who are the most peculiar people (in ways great and otherwise), not the rest of humananity. Even East Asians are more connected to instincts bred out of Europeans over just the last fifteen centuries. You really did not want to have a beer with a Briton back in that day, or a Scotsman. Not your people.

21. Aha, but what is human behavior but a response to incentives? And what do we call the science of incentives? *Economics*.

    What does homo economicus tell us about the universal state of man?

    First of all, we hate to be punished more than we like to be rewarded. Look at how we respond to taxes. Studies have shown that if faced with a choice between a small gain or a small loss, most players will take it easy, doing nothing, being risk-averse.

    But there is a small subset of men — and it is always men — who choose to disregard the economic laws. This grand minority believes in one thing and one thing only: Fortune Favors The Bold.

    Disregarding the economic “sense” of the matter, they take calculated risks for high payoffs. If a hot young piece of ass is asleep on the couch in the house, our Bold Man will creep down by her side and attempt to have his way with her. Alone in a darkened room, he will chance an alarm and swipe at a drawstring bag left unattended. He is more than curious, he is Radical.

    When Hernan Cortes landed in Mexico in the early 1500s, he burned the ships leading back to Cuba and safety, wonderfully focusing the mind. Then he faced the 11 million of the Aztec Empire with a handful of Spanish soldiers. It was perhaps the rawest, truest example of Fortune Favors The Bold in human history.

    As we venture out into outer space and distant worlds, it is the minority like Cortes who will lead the way, and the rest of the sheeple will struggle on in back, all bunched up. There is fresh air and room to move in the front — if you but choose to take it.

    — Xloveli (dark.sport.blog)

    • Did you mother not love you? Do you really think it’s all about economics?

    • Homo economicus is not going to get you anywhere useful. Men value things differently, yet the neoclassicals applied their own valuations to make statements about how a human society would function. Same thing Rawls does with his “veil of ignorance” nonsense. Same thing Z talks about the way natural rights people assume everyone else wants to live under their rules. (Though, to be fair, so does everyone else who is not explicitly local, local, local.)

      You were OK right up until the second paragraph.

    • What does homo economicus tell us about the universal state of man?

      He tells us he does not exist and never existed. This is an authority conjured from nothing but a need for an authority that supported libertarian economics.

22. At least the Marxist and Wokesters are consistent. They believe that all humans are equally capable and thus go in search of some reason for the lack of equal outcomes.

    The Natural Rights crowd – and especially the HBD-aware crowd – are strangely inconsistent. They accept that there is a natural order, that nature plays a part in who we are and how we structure society. They even accept natural differences between men and women and often even among races/ethnicities.

    Yet, they also assume that all people – men or women, different races – should live by values created by and for a specific group of wealthy men hundreds of years ago. They accept nature but then deny that nature could impact how various people might want to organize themselves.

    When you bring up this inconsistency, the Natural Rights crowd just waves it away as Yankee missionary might if you mentioned that maybe Africans can’t or don’t want to live like Massachusetts Protestant.

    Rufo and his crowd want to impose their moral values onto others, just as the Marxists and Wokester want to do. But they will fail for the same reason that I can’t hold a chair over my head indefinitely: Nature always wins.

    • Amen on that Brother…It seems cognitive dissonance affects most…It’s funny to me that the same people who rail against immigration because there is no magic dirt will turn right around and tell you they have to stay where they are because of magic dirt…

      • Yep. They laugh at the Left (and Right) for their belief in “magic dirt” but then turn around and believe in the “magic words” from the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

        • Exactly right never once understanding that it’s the people who make a country not magic dirt, words, or money…

          • How did the Constitution do in Liberia? Or how is it doing in 2024 AINO?

          • Institutions (the Constitution) are downstream from Culture.

            Culture is downstream from biology.

            Change the biology and eventually the culture will change and finally the institutions.

            Once I understood that, everything became very clear. We’ve already changed the biology. The change in culture really started in the 1990s and has accelerated. Now, the institutions are changing.

            Nothing stops this train.

          • You’re right Brother nothing stops this train but seems most are comfortable riding it off the cliff because damn these cushions are so comfy and if I work hard enough I might get to upgrade to the sleeper car…Screw all those who are riding in the standing room only cars they should of pulled themselves up by their bootstraps harder…

          • I remember arguing with Conservatives who pointed with pride to George Washington refusing to become King after the Revolution. No kings for them! Instead, they had a president, and that proved how virtuous their Founders and the system they created were! I told them it wouldn’t have mattered if George Washington HAD become King George the First of America. America was a success because it’s *people* were good, and they’d have been just as good with a king as they were under a president. It wasn’t the carefully devised system that worked so well, it was the people devoted to making it work. This tendency to venerate the mechanics led to a weird certainty that all that was necessary was to remove a foreign king or strongman, and virtue and happiness were guaranteed to ensue.

        • “Yep. They laugh at the Left (and Right) for their belief in “magic dirt” but then turn around and believe in the “magic words” from the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.”

          This x100. It is why I don’t give anyone grief for wanting to leave this economic trading zone.

    • Yet, they also assume that all people – men or women, different races – should live by values created by and for a specific group of wealthy men hundreds of years ago. They accept nature but then deny that nature could impact how various people might want to organize themselves.

      It looks that way to those who want national or supra-national level organizations. The Libertarian Party, for example, thinks on that scale, so your observation there is valid. That’s a modern phenomenon. Historical natural rights types were not the ones making the world safe for democracy. Even as recently as 1800, there was no “the United States”, but “these United States”.

      At one time, organization at the state or canton level was the norm, and that left a lot of room for tribalism to form societies with varying levels of prosperity. However, there’s way too much “diversity” for natural rights organization at even the state level to work anymore. Tribe up is inherently a local phenomenon, at this late date, probably not possible above that.

      • “Tribe up is inherently a local phenomenon, at this late date, probably not possible above that.”

        Tell that to Han or Japanese.

        The scale of a set of values can be as big or small as the people that create those values. When America was 90% white, the Constitution’s values generally fit across the country with lots of local variations.

        But as whites become a minority, those values must be imposed on the non-whites with varying degrees of success. However, that system will eventually break down because it’s unnatural. Ironically, it won’t be the groups least able to live under those white values (blacks and Hispanics) who will bring it down. It’ll be those groups that can infiltrate the system (Jews, Asians and Indians) and then take it over who are the real danger.

        • That’s exactly what I meant. Japan and China have successfully resisted importing diversity and the whole melting pot claptrap, so they can still organize at larger levels.

          Here in the states, you have to continually fight TPTB to keep them from converting some of your local housing into Section 8, and thereby destroying your community. That simply cannot be done at even the level of a medium-sized town anymore. There are too many traitors.

          • In my town, they are currently building apartments adjacent to my neighborhood which will pack 3000 people on 20 acres. The city officials didn’t have to approve such high density but no doubt, money got passed under the table. In the next town over the apartments under construction will double their population in less than two years from 19000 to 38000. Their water and sewer system can barely handle the current population levels. It never occurs to these politicians to represent the present members of the community only the interests of Black Rock type corporate developers.

          • Nick: Sounds like it’s past time to move.

23. What is wrong with segregation of people based on race? Seems to me like that would be far superior to what we have now.

    • Don’t you always need somebody lower on the totem pole if for no other reason then to keep you from being on on the lowest rung?

      • Are you stupid or a liar?

      • You must be at the bottom and you know it.

        Anyway, even though you are a moron, I will explain to you what is the actual point: If you don’t mix races, there is no reason for interracial conflict. In a “good fences make good neighbors” way. People of every race have their ancestral homelands (if they can keep them). Africa should belong to Africans. Europe belongs to native Europeans, Hell belongs to jews etc.

        • I guess I hit a nerve. Are you projecting?

          Who’s going to do your gardening? Who’s going to rip the shingles off your roof? Who’s going to do all the dirty jobs that a lot of people consider themselves too good for? What does any of that have to do with a race mixing? It’s just a fact of life.

          • I can do all of this myself you retard. And your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Now crawl back to whatever hole you cam out of.

          • Hitting a nerve there, huh, Sheets? Well you’re the ones who brought the blacks here in the first place. Is that because you all were too lazy to tame the South? Even in those days did you prefer to string yourselves out on meth all day rather than work?

          • Stupid, liar, and troll.

        • The problem with Africa belonging to Africans (a noble idea) is their utter inability to do anything productive with it. or to construct a political organization to defend it, thus opening the door to foreign exploitation by parties, be they European or Han, who see all those unused resources lying around and can’t resist. I’m not saying the foreign exploiters are “right,” but that human nature (uh oh) being what it is, they are inevitable, sooner or later.

          • Perhaps, but consider this:

            1. We can live without Africa and African resources.

            2. There is a cost to exploitation of that continent – population explosion without the ability to sustain itself without external help and the resulting expansion of that population to the West…

            If the cost of 2) wasn’t ignored and socialized, but the specific exploiters (the companies, the explorers, the NGOs etc) were forced to cover the cost forever, maybe then we would be closer to an acceptable situation.

          • Africans incompetence is NOT our problem.
            Therefore your thesis is specious.

          • Vinny, I do so wish African incompetence wasn’t our problem. I find it quite likely that it’s the number one reason this website exists.

          • I’m with you, @Jeffery. In fact, I’m fine with just buying the resources from the Han, and let them deal with the natives. Surely they will be treated nearly as well as the somewhat cosmetically similar Tibetans or Uighars.

      • Stupid, liar, and troll.

    • The human race was once naturally segregated. Then White men started exploring, then realized how superior they were to most of the other peoples encountered, then started ruling over some of those other peoples, then began to believe they had a responsibility to help those other peoples, then created modes of transportation that allowed those other peoples to invade their lands, then allowed those other peoples (and women) to vote and occupy positions of power, and here we are…

      • Don’t forget that his inventions of medicine and mass production in agriculture that also enabled them mass reproduction success.

        As for the belief in the need to help those others. Yes. But there were also bankers who saw those additional sacks of flesh as a means to keep their debt ponzi scheme going. They aren’t humans, they are units of GDP that will keep our GDP:debt models working.

        It won’t work, but the damage they will do is still unknown and unfolding. Step One, get rid of the white man whose ability for long range thinking and his spirit, (mostly to now dormant), that wants to reject this disaster makes him opposition.

        And so, here we are.

        • Truth right there Brother…

    • Indeed. I was puzzled by that statement in today’s piece.

      • I was as well. I think he may have left out the word `against`.

    • Segregating based upon race is still practiced at the most basic levels, like at lunch tables.

24. Whose Truth should be listened to….I would say the one who wants the best for you…

25. It’s really strange and counter-intuitive that in 2500 years, humanity has regressed from Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas to the likes of Rousseau, Marx, and the new head of NPR…Christianity has to take a lot of the blame….Jefferson’s phrase “All men are created equal” was intended to mean equal under God, but has been turned into the egalitarian nonsense that is destroying the West…

    • No, postmodern man’s willful misinterpretation of Christianity has to take a lot of the blame.

    • I would say the blame lies with those who hate us and want us dead or enslaved and they think it’s funny…

26. Dog Thomas Aquinas and dog different behaviors are the new Africanized bees analogy for what everybody knows. The sheep question is a totally new analogy I guess, do bees have a version of the wandering bee?

27. Here here.

    The framework from which we build is in part genetic; our ancestry, where they physically lived, and the selection pressures therein.

    We can’t expect tribes from say, the North Sentinel Islands, who have yet to reach the Bronze age to be able to organize their thoughts in such a way to even comprehend of our current way of thinking. Let alone the concept of ‘Democracy’.

    And the timeline for evolutionary change happens at such a long horizon that even if we imported them to live here for 400 years, there’s still no way they could conceive of how western European peoples think.

    • But what if it’s our way that isn’t natural to man? What if random, impulsive, chaotic thought and behavior is supposed to be the norm and we, like trained seals, have been trained to live within a boxed-in logical framework? What if we are supposed to live more by the seat of our pants, our own intuition and, yes, emotion?

      • Another deep thought from Jack Handy. :rolleyes:

        • Well the name like Kozelskii you should know exactly what I’m talking about. The skis of the world, of which I am one, don’t always think of and do things in the western manner themselves.

          • As of the present, the Skiis are the most Western of all Western men.

          • Sorry, folks, but I gotta upvote Jack Handy for the sick burns. I mean, “Sheets, strung out on meth” and “the skis of the world” are goddam funny. And so very wrong.

            Tempo is such a bad doggy. Tempo! Sit!

          • “What’s the problem, Sheets?” LOL. LMFAO!!
            Damn you, Tempo!

          • “And so very wrong.”

            Really, read Thomas Sowell about who the “rednecks” were and where blacks adopted their behaviors from. It never ceases to amaze me how (at least the public face) of black immigrants is nothing like what we see from our home-grown blacks. Thomas Sowell says the they adopted their behaviors from the rednecks of England. He might have a point.

            Just look at all the layabouts throughout Appalachia. Early disability, strung out on meth all day, girlfriends working and supporting them. These are the descendants of their great-great-great-great granddaddies who gave us an angry slave descendant population.

            But, hey, at least they excel in athletics.

      • Stupid, liar, troll.

    • Right. 400 years is an eye-blink, a mere 20 generations, yet somehow Europeans managed to go from mud huts to Notre Dame in less. That is not enough time for traditional Darwinist evolution to explain based on fairly well understood mutation rates, but it is well within Punk Eek.

      I just ordered the Cochrane book. 10k years is a mere 500 generations. That’s way more than you need to select for desirable traits within a gene pool, e.g. mud hut to Notre Dame, but to create them ex nihilo? Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

      • Northern Europeans didn’t go from mud huts to Notre Dame in 400 years any more than Americans went from Hillbilly shacks in WV to landing a man on the moon in 50 years.

        The early Middle Ages weren’t exactly a time of great scholarship or building, but pockets did exist. The Europeans at that time were probably 96-98 avg IQ and much more prone to violence that we are today.

        Settling down, towns, etc., pushed that avg IQ and cooperation up to what was needed for Notre Dame. Europeans were ready to break through. Africans would need thousands of years of serious natural selection to get to where Europeans and Asians are today.

        • Mud huts existed in Europe until the 19th century, in some places the 20th century. There were always pockets of poverty. There was not always such a thing as the Sistine Chapel or Romanesque architecture. 9th century wood and earth fortifications were replaced by real castles in under 3 centuries.

          How many African nations developed anything remotely close to 11th century Germany?

    • Indeed. Negroes have lived among us 400 years and doing so hasn’t put a dent in their primitive minds. Maybe 400,000 years from now they’ll have learned not to max out their credit cards on bling when they can barely afford to purchase a watermelon.

      • Lol… Can they even do that(purchase a watermelon) without our help?

      • Agreed. That’s the problem. They have not had to develop their own systems of civil society because they’ve always leeched off Europeans.

        Send them back to Africa and once they make something of themselves, then we can talk.

        • Agreed on the sending them all back but disagree on them developing their own civil society I don’t think they are capable of it…I think all they are capable of is might makes right and if they aren’t around me then let them have whatever system suits them…

          • You aren’t really disagreeing. You are assuming they can’t do it at all, I’m assuming that if they can, we’ll have warp drives by then, so won’t be talking to them anyway.

28. I have chickens now. The only learned behavior I observe is where they’re supposed to go sleep for the night. They hatch out completely wired for Chicken behavior.

    The US software was written for a population with a mean IQ of 100, and you probably need at least 103-105 for full civic engagement in a self-ruled republic. Below 90 IQ concepts like free markets, due process, monetary inflation are just too abstract. But sub-90 IQ people have the right to vote. And own a gun.

    • and create more sub 90’s…

      • Lots of them…and supported by our government(s)…

      • Yes. And pay for more of them by cuckholding the 100+ segment of the society by transfer payments a.k.a. Welfare.

        • Yea exactly, wonder why most men here are ok with that and are not doing everything in their power to stop it…Must be comfortable enough paying the danegeld and hoping it won’t go up…

29. All humans wear some sort of clothing or ornamentation. It might be mostly decorative, it might not cover much but all humans do it. There are no naked humans.

    • But humans were not clothed until roughly 70,000 years ago, and still go naked at times in some very hot, wet climates like the Amazon and New Guinea…

      • Oh come now. A string around the hips is still clothing.
        A penis sheath, now that’s high fashion. C’est tres haute couture.

    • Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

30. “Also note that natural rights arguments should be placed alongside things like Marxism, libertarianism, and anarchism.”

    Exactly. All those other isms came out of enlightenment that replaced God and God-given rights of kings with “Nature”. It was a novel and powerful concept then, but everything overused reaches its diminishing return. Now we are at the tail-end of the cycle.

    On top of that, global travel and migration mixes all kinds of people without the same history of enlightenent. To them, these conceps act as voodoo, but democracy would eventually give them numerical supremacy.

    We are clearly in a mess. How it sorts out is the biggest mystery going forward.

31. With regard to dogs, Anglin persuasively argued that there’s only one breed of dog — the dog breed. I’m a breed realist myself.

    https://dailystormer.in/theres-only-one-breed-of-dog-the-dog-breed/

    • But some breeds are much smarter than others, as all dog lovers know….

      • And some more aggressive, others more timid. Some more beautiful, others less so. The diversity among dogs mirrors that among humans.

        • Among dogs it’s been accelerated by breeders. Among human races by the differences in environment and genetic drift.

          • Nah. The Nordic look didn’t develop because fjords, but because men saw blonde hair, blue eyes as more attractive than the alternatives. That I can understand. I do not get the selection process that happened in Africa.

          • And in tool usage. Tool usage allowed diverse branches to differentiate and adapt to different niches much, much faster, even more so with language and storytelling developing as an accelerant.

          • As to the selection process that happened in Africa, a small band of Erectus descent hid in the central highlands for 300,000 years, avoiding the Neanderthals whose job it was to eliminate the obsolete versions. (Just as a pupae eliminates the caterpillar, and the butterfly eliminates the pupae…and replicants might someday replace us.)

            The catastrophic end of the Ice Age- meteor impact melting the North American ice sheet, and the resulting climate chaos- gave that small band of Negroids their chance.

            They have higher testosterone, thus are more physically and sexually aggressive (their men die early of high blood pressure, their women grow fat); their extra quadracepts muscle makes them faster runners.

            Their more temperate climate and root tuber diet means they never had to advance beyond village level. Root tubers- taro, yam, sweet potato- cannot be stored as dried grain can, and they had no winter to deal with. (Winter means the mere act of walking outside will kill you.) Tubers grow all year long, one need only dig up a few for tonight’s dinner. They never had to develop storage, temples, or the civilizational mindset that comes with it.

            Faster, more aggressive, wildly fecund, with no pressing need to think about tomorrow; that, combined with the powerfully tribal instincts of the emosocial hindbrain (what I call the ‘breeder brain’), meant that once freed from their hiding place, the Negroids were able to overrun the Cromagnon descent Khoisan in less than 5000 years and retake possession of the African continent.

          • @Alzaebo, I get that. What I struggle with is the thought process that goes into, “Nigga, I wants me a piece of that sheboon!”

            Surely, somewhere along the line, there must have been a mutant here and there that was, ya know, not completely ugly.

          • Ha! Steve, so my skinny little black friend Ricky and me in his Camaro years ago were cruisin’ the hood. He pulls up to the empty baseball field and parks it right there, turns off the engine.
            I axed him what we’re doing.

            There, stretched out on the sun-drenched grass, are two of the biggest, fattest ghettopotamuses I’ve ever seen. Facing away from us, just catching some rays and waiting for admirers. Wearing cutoffs like gluteous mountains.

            Skinny little Ricky leans back with a smile, and says, “See that? Man, this is bu-u-utt country.”
            Skinny little Ricky just couldn’t get enough of those big girls, always had one or two with him.

            __________________
            This, I suppose, is also the place to thank Hun profusely for his observation. My gosh, yes! Make the damned corps and NGOs pay the aftercosts of feeding africans, from their profits on african resources!

            And also yes, j**s, like their african forebears, really do belong to H. E. Doubletoothpix. IndoEuropean admixture is their attempt to escape it, but it only resulted in a particularly broken branch. (I say this without animosity, in a purely scientific sense.)

            Not their fault, or anybody’s fault, it is only that they are overly susceptible to Its contagion.

            Evolution, and Life itself, is a messy kludge powered by the immense pressure of cosmic necessity. What is the meaning of life? It is beyond morality. It is beyond Mind. Without its skein, all those lights in the sky? They all go out.

            Everything stops; everything, everywhere. We have to happen, and Whites, above all, must happen, here.

Comments are closed.