Feb 7, 2020, 9:02 PM (copied from quora) We process much more information. That’s the major difference. In general you want a big round head, a lot of neural density, and the lowest possible friction of transmission (white matter). In addition to processing more information we often identify increasingly subtle (more remote) patterns. And because of this we can work longer at learning – and some of us (I am certainly one of them) feel anxiety, depression, or pain if we are not learning. So not only can we learn more, faster, but we can learn more because we can learn more hours per day. The more information we have, the more remote the patterns we see, the more we rely on that information and the less on intuition, norm, tradition, and the opinions and ideas of others. Additionally, some people have better short term memories and can hold larger static models. ( Hawking is a great example, but so are many others). I do not have this particular ability and I find that it is what differentiates me from the people who are above me. Additionally some people have superior verbal abilities and can describe what they think of more accessibly. (Noam Chomsky is smarter than I am, in both short term memory and verbal ability, and rarely loses his place no matter how convoluted the conversational route. ) Some of us have more discipline, more conscientiousness, and skepticism and we’re possibly more autistic (which is the result of high neuronal density anyway), and we simply make fewer errors than others. This is very rare. We mature at different rates. Some of us have exceptional abilities in childhood and have nervous breakdowns when we reach young adulthood. (This is a subject I study now and then.) Others mature normally. Others of us mature more slowly. Normies are quite frustrating really. I had the great fortune to have a very old professor of contract law, who told me my sophomore year that “The world is not meant for us. It is meant for them. We are prisoners of their world. And the best we can do is help them through it.” And I found that advice to be profoundly useful in ending the the feeling that normies run the world, like children at a birthday party running with scissors. 😉 —-Updated—- In response to other comments I added this bit of background. We commonly confuse Measurement of intelligence (g), with demonstrated intelligence, with applied intelligence, and with the personality trait of conscientiousness. Let’s disambiguate them so we explain the variables that affect it. Despite appearances, the brain is not a complicated organ. It consists almost entirely of nerve cells. They all do the same thing. And there are only really three or four kinds – depending upon where the ‘decision’ has to be made by the neuron. There are a LOT of these neurons and they’re connected in almost infinite ways. But, what they do is quite simple. How they do it is elegant, and infinitely complex, and it’s a vast parallel division of labor between them. Intelligence consists pretty much of (a) a volume of cells – more is better, (b) efficiency of the network (especially the control of attention) – meaning limiting information-loss as it calculates, (c) how that network grew in utero, and during the first two years, (d) lack of defects in anything that affects the network (and that’s a lot of possibility right there). IQ is our attempt to measure (g) which is about the same class of problem as how much water can get through a big city’s plumbing system, electrical grid, or traffic system, and still give you a shower, power your air conditioner, and get your goods delivered to shops. The formula for resistance in undersea cables and dendrites within neurons is the same. So, we think of (g) as something you ‘get’. But it’s not. It’s more a function how many neurons versus how little friction there is that hinders water, electricity, or traffic (information). The ‘economy’ of the neural synapse is an interesting example. A synapse can only manufacture so many chemicals at any rate. So a synapse can grow until we generate enough demand for more synapses at which point we grow more of them. And out of a set of synapses some will have the resources to discharge chemicals when the neuron fires, and some won’t. How many things can affect just that one micro economy? INTELLIGENCE The Series 1 – (g) intelligence potential … … demonstrated intelligence (you do things) … … … applied intelligence (you achieve things) Depends Upon: 2 – Trait Conscientiousness (stick to it, agency) 3 – Short Term Memory capacity (math in particular) 4 – General Knowledge (can also compensate for iq) 5 – Not wanting falsehoods (preference for truth) 6 – Lack of traumas or other defects At least those six dimensions affect demonstrated and applied intelligence. And despite postmodern (wishful thinking, denial,sophistry, and pseudoscience), measurement of IQ in psychology, and stereotypes in sociology are the two most accurate measurements in the human sciences. IMPORTANT: The data says something very clear though that should temper our interpretation: success is dependent almost entirely on conscientiousness (agency, delayed gratification, diligence). Intelligence determines the degree of complexity under which you can compete with others. But if you can manage to develop agency whether with trait conscientiousness or not, you can be successful in life anywhere along the bell curve (and the opposite is also true). MALE AND FEMALE BRAINS Despite pseudoscientific attempts to obscure it, sex differences in bias, cognition, intelligence, were settled by 2012. The primary differences being the rather obvious, lateral (female) white matter, synthetic, interpersonal, empathic, and generosity (dysgenia: quantity over quality) and the longitudinal (male) grey matter, analytic, political, physical, and parsimonious (eugenia: quality over quantity). So we see specialization in sex cognition as well as sex bias and preference. Stereotypes are largely true a the level of distributions, with bias and preference combined with conscientiousness causing predicted sortition into fields and contexts according to stereotypical differences – and unexpectedly, we see that as equality increases women and men demonstrate GREATER bias to stereotypical fields and contexts – not less. THEORY My current understanding is that intelligence provides a discount on acquisition of knowledge (identification and construction of patterns (networks of relations)), but also increases detection of error, bias, and deceit. This is why western and far eastern bureaucracies focused on promoting people with HIGH IQ’s: they are more successful at defending the polity and economy from ignorance, error, bais, wishful thinking, and deceit.
Form: Mini Essay
-
“Curt: Are There Racial Differences in Climate Tolerance?”
Feb 9, 2020, 12:58 PM
—“Are Caucasian people more tolerant to colder climatic conditions than people with a higher concentration of melanin? If so, why?”— (from my post on quora)
Thank you for asking the question. As far as I know, not really. It’s more that black people are more tolerant of heat and heat has a calming effect on us, and cold lets us work longer and harder. So body type and interests determine cold tolerance. But let’s go through the explanation of why. The human form evolved to run for long periods, exhaust prey, and then kill them when exhausted. We then adapted this frame to local climate and resource conditions around the world. ie: pygmies of africa, hobbits of the pacific, the Dutch and the Montenegrins as the tallest. There are three other factors that heavily influenced post hunter-gatherer evolution of the races: the need for warm climate people to mature early to resist disease, and the benefit of cold climate people to mature slowly making them more compliant when living in close quarters for long periods, and the survivability of those who can’t accumulate and mange capital in agrarian winters. People of the african race are more tolerant of hot conditions both because of their melanin and because both africans and east asians have more durable skin than whites – that’s why they wrinkle less. People of the african race were preferred for slaves in the plantation colonies because they have a higher resistance to both heat AND malaria – which was killing white workers faster than they could be supplied. People of the inuit are more tolerant of cold conditions because of their limb to torso ratio. White people are more tolerant long term of low light conditions. There is some evidence that people of the african race have lower metabolisms (see research on caloric expenditure of white vs black female students). But otherwise, in general, thinner frames will always tolerate heat better and heavier frames cold better. Or as veterinarians say “In the cold, horses and cows are like baked potatoes, and people are like french fries, but some of us are thicker french fries than others.” My current understanding is that white temperaments are more suitable to cold conditions. This is due to minor differences in personality traits distributions between the races. For example, while africans are less agreeable they are more prosocial (extroverted). Whites are more agreeable but less emotionally stable, and east asians even more agreeable and less emotionally stable – all of these data are consistent with the difference in neoteny between the races as the primary difference: east asians, whites, and africans – and all the admixtures between them, are at decreasing levels of neoteny (self domestication). and that self domestication is the result of environmental pressures in african, west eurasian, and east asian populations. NOTE: So, because this is an importance we don’t want to miss: there is somewhat disturbing trade off between neoteny producing more agreeable peaceful people with greater intellectual abilities and a decline in emotional stability by doing so. In other words, there is a balance we must seek. I’m saying this so that my fellow whites understand our women and we understand that there may be no further trade off by further neotonic development. There are quite a few difference between the races. The problem we have is in differentiating class and race differences. In other words, if you don’t account for genetic class you can misinterpret variations between races that are just differences in the size of the classes. In general, the asians have the smallest underclass – rice farming is brutal, whites have the next smallest underclass, white african admixture (hispanics, arabs) quite a bit larger, and african much larger. But what does that tell you? Nothing other than that it’s harder for underclasses to survive in cold climates agrarian civilizations, so the primary difference between the races is class size. And the average determines norms in a polity. Or said less ‘politically correct’ eugenics was the most important truth suppressed in the 20th century and is equal to the church’s suppression of science in the middle ages. Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Real Power Analysis
At the end of the day, all power flows from the end of a g-u-n. “But any rightwing force would be demonized heavily by our enemies.” Of course. Always go back to the main point – no matter how badly our enemies slander & demonize us, they have no enforcement arm they can fully/confidently count on. This is a very different situation to WW2 where the USA, its population without internet/alternative info sources, was rallied to defeat Germany with military might. Who are our enemies going to rally to crush “those evil Trump supporters”? Our military voted 2/3rds Trump. Cops questionable but the only data I’ve seen shows they are at least at a basic level mostly pro-2A, and are only staffed for barebones crime suppression anyway. Even if our enemies could count 100% on those 2 groups (they can’t, but just for the sake of argument), sheer numbers and 4G warfare aspect are still massively in our favor. Also most sheriffs seem to be far better than cops. Some say our enemies will bring in UN troops, as if that would somehow turn the tide. No one who says that knows how small UN troops are in number. Some say the establishment will bring in chinese troops. But China has very little expeditionary military capability, and more importantly there are a lot of other reasons the establishment is highly unlikely to do that, & China would be highly unlikely to agree. China’s economy is totally dependent on ours. It would also, given that our military voted 2/3rds Trump, amount to the invasion of one nuclear power by another – highly, highly unlikely. If the US govt has to bring in foreign armies to kill their own citizens, it’s an open admission that they have very little favor with their own citizens & can’t control their own population. Even if they did bring in UN or foreign troops, it would activate far more rightwingers to fight – any moral hesitation rightwingers have (the only thing currently holding back the right – “maybe there’s another solution” – would instantly disappear), and it would be open season, all-out, no-holds-barred war. The establishment does not want this. They want to manage the status quo decline & skim off the top parasitically. Massive conflict is very bad for biz. Trillions lost per day. The whole world (the world economy largely depends on USA) would be begging to restore normalcy. This is a very different situation than Germany in WW2, because the “teams” that have ability to project force, and the incentives of those teams, are very different in their power balance. Our enemies’ only possible enforcement arms: U.S. military – voted 2/3rds Trump Cops – mostly pro-2A, staffed only for bare minimum crime suppression Sheriffs – largely on the Right side UN troops – small in number, negative consequences of bringing them in to U.S. soil exceed the benefits Chinese troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed benefits Other foreign troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed the benefits, foreign troops would be essentially paid mercenaries, we’d be fighting for our lives, our people, our civilization Left grassroots – far, far fewer guns than us, not “into” force/guns as a lifestyle/norm Inner city gangs – more of a liability than a benefit to the left, especially in 4G scenario Mexican/Central American drug cartels – relatively small in terms of sheer numbers, PR nightmare to employ FBI/other 3-letter agency goons – small in number NPCs/normies – will not fight for either side, want comfort/ease, some/many may hate the Right but all will benefit the Right bcuz they will cry out for restoration of order at any cost. There, that’s it – a full list of our enemies’ potential enforcement arms. Pretty pitiful. And even IF they could get the entire U.S. military (2M, many not frontlines), all cops (600k), and the entire Chinese military (2M, many not frontlines) to obey them 100%, we would still outnumber them 20-to-1 (roughly 40 million grassroots rightwing men), our team would also have 10 times more former U.S. military than our enemies current militaries, and our enemies would still have major difficulty countering 4G warfare. This answers the question “Does the Right have a chance of winning in a conflict?” (Yes. A very, very good chance. Even if our numbers were dramatically lower than they are, ease of 4G warfare BY ITSELF – the difficulty of defeating it & maintaining/restoring order – gives the Right a major advantage.) The next question is “To what extent will the Right fight? (How many will fight?)” That, each man must answer for himself. But the excuse “I don’t know if we have a chance of winning” is illegitimate.
-
The Real Power Analysis
At the end of the day, all power flows from the end of a g-u-n. “But any rightwing force would be demonized heavily by our enemies.” Of course. Always go back to the main point – no matter how badly our enemies slander & demonize us, they have no enforcement arm they can fully/confidently count on. This is a very different situation to WW2 where the USA, its population without internet/alternative info sources, was rallied to defeat Germany with military might. Who are our enemies going to rally to crush “those evil Trump supporters”? Our military voted 2/3rds Trump. Cops questionable but the only data I’ve seen shows they are at least at a basic level mostly pro-2A, and are only staffed for barebones crime suppression anyway. Even if our enemies could count 100% on those 2 groups (they can’t, but just for the sake of argument), sheer numbers and 4G warfare aspect are still massively in our favor. Also most sheriffs seem to be far better than cops. Some say our enemies will bring in UN troops, as if that would somehow turn the tide. No one who says that knows how small UN troops are in number. Some say the establishment will bring in chinese troops. But China has very little expeditionary military capability, and more importantly there are a lot of other reasons the establishment is highly unlikely to do that, & China would be highly unlikely to agree. China’s economy is totally dependent on ours. It would also, given that our military voted 2/3rds Trump, amount to the invasion of one nuclear power by another – highly, highly unlikely. If the US govt has to bring in foreign armies to kill their own citizens, it’s an open admission that they have very little favor with their own citizens & can’t control their own population. Even if they did bring in UN or foreign troops, it would activate far more rightwingers to fight – any moral hesitation rightwingers have (the only thing currently holding back the right – “maybe there’s another solution” – would instantly disappear), and it would be open season, all-out, no-holds-barred war. The establishment does not want this. They want to manage the status quo decline & skim off the top parasitically. Massive conflict is very bad for biz. Trillions lost per day. The whole world (the world economy largely depends on USA) would be begging to restore normalcy. This is a very different situation than Germany in WW2, because the “teams” that have ability to project force, and the incentives of those teams, are very different in their power balance. Our enemies’ only possible enforcement arms: U.S. military – voted 2/3rds Trump Cops – mostly pro-2A, staffed only for bare minimum crime suppression Sheriffs – largely on the Right side UN troops – small in number, negative consequences of bringing them in to U.S. soil exceed the benefits Chinese troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed benefits Other foreign troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed the benefits, foreign troops would be essentially paid mercenaries, we’d be fighting for our lives, our people, our civilization Left grassroots – far, far fewer guns than us, not “into” force/guns as a lifestyle/norm Inner city gangs – more of a liability than a benefit to the left, especially in 4G scenario Mexican/Central American drug cartels – relatively small in terms of sheer numbers, PR nightmare to employ FBI/other 3-letter agency goons – small in number NPCs/normies – will not fight for either side, want comfort/ease, some/many may hate the Right but all will benefit the Right bcuz they will cry out for restoration of order at any cost. There, that’s it – a full list of our enemies’ potential enforcement arms. Pretty pitiful. And even IF they could get the entire U.S. military (2M, many not frontlines), all cops (600k), and the entire Chinese military (2M, many not frontlines) to obey them 100%, we would still outnumber them 20-to-1 (roughly 40 million grassroots rightwing men), our team would also have 10 times more former U.S. military than our enemies current militaries, and our enemies would still have major difficulty countering 4G warfare. This answers the question “Does the Right have a chance of winning in a conflict?” (Yes. A very, very good chance. Even if our numbers were dramatically lower than they are, ease of 4G warfare BY ITSELF – the difficulty of defeating it & maintaining/restoring order – gives the Right a major advantage.) The next question is “To what extent will the Right fight? (How many will fight?)” That, each man must answer for himself. But the excuse “I don’t know if we have a chance of winning” is illegitimate.
-
On Farmers in The Division of Labor
(The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).
-
On Farmers in The Division of Labor
(The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).
-
Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons
Feb 22, 2020, 11:35 AM by Alain Dwight Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups. Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age. It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine. These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion. It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.
-
Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons
Feb 22, 2020, 11:35 AM by Alain Dwight Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups. Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age. It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine. These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion. It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.
-
What Does White Mean?
Feb 23, 2020, 3:03 PM (possibly controversial post warning)(This post covers genetic differences in neoteny, cognition and personality between geographic groups, and between the sexes. Stop reading if you are concerned you would be offended.)
—“White means….”— Elizabeth Anonymous
Hmmm…. I do science. I leave intellectual dishonesty for others. We don’t have a term for Genetic, Ethic, Europeans other than ‘White’. But “White”, meaning Ancestral Ethnic European, is easily genetically determinable. In general, at least six generations are necessary to launder ethnic outbreeding. Even, by six generations someone will still express certain dominant traits despite constraining breeding within the group. And it is still easy to determine the difference between a full Scandinavian and the same generation with an Iberian ancestor. Whites are the remains of the post-glacial maximum peoples, plus the early neolithic farmers, who were conquered, largely genocided and replaced by the ie’s. We are the most genetically homogenous people outside of Han-Korean-Japanese. The only open question is whether we include the remaining pre-ie Anatolian, early neolithic farmer populations of the Balkans, Greece, Southern Italy, and Sardinia in the classification ‘white’ out of cultural affinity under Christianity, or we limit ourselves to genetics using the european branch of the IE expansion: Itals (south), Germanics, Scandinavians, Baltics, Slavs, and Finnics. The rest of the Caucasians descend from the Iranic branch of the IE’s, and anatolians (Hittites), Caucasians (if they existed), and those that integrated into the Semitic peoples – are all lost to us. There were only a few post-glacial maximum west eurasian peoples, and the turks of the northern far east, are the only peoples of the post-glacial that are not indo europeans. Science is science. Women fear conflict. Women disapprove rather than accept an undesirable but true statement. Women will deny a truth to avoid conflict. Women will advance a falsehood to eschew conflict. While the male vs female distribution of personality Traits and Facets overlaps, the difference between the sexual (gender) relative homogeneity of traits, and the relative heterogeneity of Facets under those traits, is (a) agreeableness, (c) dominance expression, and this results in the (to females) annoying male habit of stating the truth despite the undesirability of it. It also accounts for the approximately 20% improvement in male detection of general trait expression and symmetric improvement in female detection of individual trait expression. In other words, males are more often correct in the ascertainment of empirically correct stereotypes than females, both at the perceptual-cognitive level and at the agreeability level. While women are equally superior at individual emotional empathy and incentive-sympathy. Net net of the science as it sits: Neoteny slows maturity and buys agency (neural formation) at the cost of emotional instability (creativity, neuroticism). This explains the high emotional instability of european women, and the nearly 1/3 of european women that experience psychological issues when not working in close association with other women to limit them. East asians are the most neotenous by far, europeans less so, africans and afro-asiatics lees so. This is why east asians, then europeans, then afrio-asiatics (semitic peoples), the africans have increasing rates of maturity at decreasing agency and verbal ability. Europeans (a) have not over-neotenized like the east asians nor under neotenized like the africans, and at the same time we have practiced cold weather eugenics for thousands of years. So between our neotenic development, our least-clannish(racist) temperament, our balance of verbal and spatial abilities, and our development of sovereignty (what we mistakenly call individualism) and the culture that resulted from it, including tripartism (markets between miltiary-judicial, producers-philosophers, and priests-theologians, we developed reason, empiricism, science, technology and medicine faster than all other peoples in the world combined. Ergo, unfortunately, it’s true that at last working class and upward whites are genetically and culturally superior in those ways necessary for the production of advanced and rapidly advancing civilization. And demand by women and immigrants to revert our civilization to primitive, reality-denying, maladaptive, authoritarian, non-market civilization, just proves that (a) these other peoples are unable to integrate in our civilization because they cannot compete in it, (b) our women have defected against our civilization out of fear of conflict and are assisting the destruction of our civilization – just as women and slaves undermined and brought down the roman empire using Christianity from within. So christianity in the ancient world with the false promise of life after death, and promise of freedom from nature’s competition by marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, human-bio-diversity-denialism, and ‘silencing the truth’ in the modern world to destroy western civlization yet again. It’s women that need to look in the mirror. Not men. We have the courage to face the man in the mirror. Do you have the courage to face the woman in the mirror? That is the only test of equality of agency that matters.
-
What Does White Mean?
Feb 23, 2020, 3:03 PM (possibly controversial post warning)(This post covers genetic differences in neoteny, cognition and personality between geographic groups, and between the sexes. Stop reading if you are concerned you would be offended.)
—“White means….”— Elizabeth Anonymous
Hmmm…. I do science. I leave intellectual dishonesty for others. We don’t have a term for Genetic, Ethic, Europeans other than ‘White’. But “White”, meaning Ancestral Ethnic European, is easily genetically determinable. In general, at least six generations are necessary to launder ethnic outbreeding. Even, by six generations someone will still express certain dominant traits despite constraining breeding within the group. And it is still easy to determine the difference between a full Scandinavian and the same generation with an Iberian ancestor. Whites are the remains of the post-glacial maximum peoples, plus the early neolithic farmers, who were conquered, largely genocided and replaced by the ie’s. We are the most genetically homogenous people outside of Han-Korean-Japanese. The only open question is whether we include the remaining pre-ie Anatolian, early neolithic farmer populations of the Balkans, Greece, Southern Italy, and Sardinia in the classification ‘white’ out of cultural affinity under Christianity, or we limit ourselves to genetics using the european branch of the IE expansion: Itals (south), Germanics, Scandinavians, Baltics, Slavs, and Finnics. The rest of the Caucasians descend from the Iranic branch of the IE’s, and anatolians (Hittites), Caucasians (if they existed), and those that integrated into the Semitic peoples – are all lost to us. There were only a few post-glacial maximum west eurasian peoples, and the turks of the northern far east, are the only peoples of the post-glacial that are not indo europeans. Science is science. Women fear conflict. Women disapprove rather than accept an undesirable but true statement. Women will deny a truth to avoid conflict. Women will advance a falsehood to eschew conflict. While the male vs female distribution of personality Traits and Facets overlaps, the difference between the sexual (gender) relative homogeneity of traits, and the relative heterogeneity of Facets under those traits, is (a) agreeableness, (c) dominance expression, and this results in the (to females) annoying male habit of stating the truth despite the undesirability of it. It also accounts for the approximately 20% improvement in male detection of general trait expression and symmetric improvement in female detection of individual trait expression. In other words, males are more often correct in the ascertainment of empirically correct stereotypes than females, both at the perceptual-cognitive level and at the agreeability level. While women are equally superior at individual emotional empathy and incentive-sympathy. Net net of the science as it sits: Neoteny slows maturity and buys agency (neural formation) at the cost of emotional instability (creativity, neuroticism). This explains the high emotional instability of european women, and the nearly 1/3 of european women that experience psychological issues when not working in close association with other women to limit them. East asians are the most neotenous by far, europeans less so, africans and afro-asiatics lees so. This is why east asians, then europeans, then afrio-asiatics (semitic peoples), the africans have increasing rates of maturity at decreasing agency and verbal ability. Europeans (a) have not over-neotenized like the east asians nor under neotenized like the africans, and at the same time we have practiced cold weather eugenics for thousands of years. So between our neotenic development, our least-clannish(racist) temperament, our balance of verbal and spatial abilities, and our development of sovereignty (what we mistakenly call individualism) and the culture that resulted from it, including tripartism (markets between miltiary-judicial, producers-philosophers, and priests-theologians, we developed reason, empiricism, science, technology and medicine faster than all other peoples in the world combined. Ergo, unfortunately, it’s true that at last working class and upward whites are genetically and culturally superior in those ways necessary for the production of advanced and rapidly advancing civilization. And demand by women and immigrants to revert our civilization to primitive, reality-denying, maladaptive, authoritarian, non-market civilization, just proves that (a) these other peoples are unable to integrate in our civilization because they cannot compete in it, (b) our women have defected against our civilization out of fear of conflict and are assisting the destruction of our civilization – just as women and slaves undermined and brought down the roman empire using Christianity from within. So christianity in the ancient world with the false promise of life after death, and promise of freedom from nature’s competition by marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, human-bio-diversity-denialism, and ‘silencing the truth’ in the modern world to destroy western civlization yet again. It’s women that need to look in the mirror. Not men. We have the courage to face the man in the mirror. Do you have the courage to face the woman in the mirror? That is the only test of equality of agency that matters.