- Home Page
- Library of Eugenics
- Genetic Revolution News
- Cosmic Heaven
- Transhuman News Blog
- Future Art Gallery
- Guest Book
- Contact Us
- About the Website
- Site Map
- Artificial Intelligence
Hate, Fear and Disgust: Evolutionary Emotions for Tribal Survival
Research into how the brain functions are now finally advancing to a level where basic emotion can be studied. Using various scanning techniques, along with studies of brain lesions, and an assortment of psychological evaluations, we are slowly unweaving the varying levels of cognitive functions and interactions. In reading several books on emotions, consciousness, and feelings, it occurred to me that we are looking inside of a primitive ape, but we are pretending that the ape has been tamed and is now in pursuit of peace and bliss. All of the data however says otherwise.
According to Damasio, there are six universal or primary emotions: happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. Secondary or social emotions include embarrassment, jealousy, guilt or pride. And background emotions include well-being, calm or tension. (Damasio, 1999) Other research on the emotions within marriage included in the primary emotions: anger, hatred and jealousy. Jealousy however may be a secondary emotion comprising fear, anger, sadness and even hatred. Or again, "hate derives from the basic emotion of disgust, whereas others believe that hate is a personalized version of anger….[or] hate can be distinguished from anger in a number of ways. For example…people experiencing hate want to avoid, or even eliminate, the source of their emotion [of hate]…." (Fletcher, 1996)
In this article, I want to discuss primarily hatred, disgust and fear, so I will dispense with happiness, sadness, anger and surprise before moving on. Sadness and surprise are self-evident emotions and I will not elaborate. Anger however is very closely associated with hatred in the literature, so I will need to delineate its meaning as it pertains to my discussion of hatred. I was discussing emotional outbursts with a friend of mine, and he stated how when he gets angry and attacks someone, he is not always certain it is not just play-acting. The same thoughts had occurred to me, and the research, whether of chimpanzees or humans seems to conclude the same thing - anger is directed at those around us for a variety of reasons, including dominance, feelings of being wronged, humiliated, etc. That is, anger as emotion is primarily directed at those around us and it does not involve a perceived threat of danger. An explosion of anger may have very negative repercussions, including extreme violence, but whatever sets it off it is not fear of something but rather an attack towards someone[s] or something[s].
Happiness is an evolutionary old emotion that exists to varying levels in different species, but how much importance has nature given to it? Is it a great motivator for action that improves our odds of survival? It doesn't seem so. In a study of happiness in chimpanzees, based on observations of their behavior, it was determined that happiness was about 40% genetic - no matter what luck or action the chimpanzees encountered - happiness has a large genetic component. (Konner, 2002) The study of humans shows similar results - it seems that finding happiness is as much genetic as it is environmental, and what makes humans happy is extremely elusive. Meaning, the pursuit of happiness is not a very powerful motivator for controlling our behavior. Genetically, people who are not neurotic and are extroverted are the happiest people - no matter what their life's circumstances.
"Between 1965 and 1999, more than 600 studies surveyed hundreds of thousands of people in sixty-nine countries to find out how different life circumstances affect happiness. Most of the effects are very small, of a sort that only such large studies readily detect. Self-reported happiness increases slightly with age, education, social class, and income, at least in Western countries. People in the developed world are happier than those in the developing world, but they do not become happier as they grow even richer. Greater disparity between rich and poor is associated with slightly lower average happiness in a nation. Other demographic factors vary in importance. Minority-group status produces slightly less happiness, after controlling for the other variables. Unemployment has a more substantial negative effect, and enjoyment of leisure activities, including volunteering as well as play, is significantly tied to happiness. Religious people are somewhat happier, but this effect becomes very small after controlling for economics, education, and social contacts - churchgoing entails relationships. Being married or cohabiting has a small but real positive effect for both sexes, especially in the honeymoon and empty-nest phases. Overall, only 10 to 15 percent of the variation in level of happiness can be reliably attributed to the total sum of such demographic factors. Still, if you manage to achieve material comforts, marry the right person, have sex frequently, mind your diet and exercise, belong to a church community, and believe in a God who cares for you, it adds up to an edge in the happiness sweepstakes." (Konner, 2002)
This research on happiness shows that the emotion of happiness is not a very powerful evolutionary emotion - nowhere as powerful as hate for example. Hate motivates us to act, but happiness is just slightly increased due to some minor circumstances we find ourselves in. Yet most of the modern ethicists like Rorty, Rawls, Dworkin, et al. have made egalitarianism a mainstay of their philosophy - but for what end? It seems that equality of outcomes has little to do with happiness, and overall, the fact that someone lives in poverty amongst others in the same lot as they are in, has little impact on their happiness. So why are so many egalitarians so obsessed with a goal that adds little to human happiness? I contend that it is hatred of the bourgeois (capitalists) or its variant, hatred of all things European, that motivates egalitarians (I will return to this later). In fact, I will contend that virtually all political movements have more to do with hatred than with compassion - for compassion outside of immediate kin or tribe has no basis in evolutionary adaptedness.
Hatred then (made up of fear and/or disgust) is one of the most motivational emotions we have in our arsenals to keep us alive. It exists or is activated in the very oldest centers of the brain, and it can be activated without ever reaching our consciousness (LeDoux, 2002); or our more advanced human brain with its highly sophisticated executive functions enabling us to plan and act in our own best interests. Primary emotions are very important to our tribal past, and others are able to recognize an emotional response in us more than we are able to comprehend it - people are better judges of other's emotions. (LeDoux, 2002) We can see the emotion of hatred in others more than they recognize it themselves - to them it is just an expression of fact: "Capitalist pigs have started this war to get rich!"
So what is hate good for, and why is it one of the primary emotions? Hate is what motivates tribes to form alliances, it is the unrestrained joy of the anticipated battle with neighboring tribes, it is blood lust, it is the fear that is covered up in an excitement of final conquest, and it can be kept alive over very long periods of time. It is only released or put aside when the enemy has been vanquished and the threat is no longer present. Hatred can last for a few minutes or a lifetime. It is what helps keep us alive when there is danger present, and it expresses itself as a sense of fear or disgust of the other. Visceral, deep, and bypassing higher cognitive machinery, it is beyond our immediate control - so we must sublimate its expression even when the emotion lurks in our ancient reptilian brain. Seeing a Black family walk down my block, my reptilian brain has the emotion of fear and disgust. If I am a good liberal I will cover up the initial feelings from the negative emotions, maybe even try to chat with them to reduce the fear. But the emotion is there regardless of how we rationalize it away. (Fletcher, 1996; Freeman, 1995) Yet, we know very little about the neurochemistry of hate, versus anxiety and depression for example. To admit that hatred is an ever-present constant in our evolved brain is just not politically correct - surely, we can teach people to love one another! Well, we can indoctrinate ourselves into believing that hatred is not a real emotion, that it serves some other emotional needs other than tribalism and warfare, but so far no explanation has been given for why humans are so quick to mobilize into martial collectives and fight to the death - just like Chimpanzees. And when the slaughter is over, the victors jump up and down, hugging each other, making lots of noise - just like chimpanzees - we must realize how primitive our emotions are. (Wrangham, 1996)
Hatred, or racism if you will, since that seems to be the current admonishment for getting rid of hate, is more innate than we like to admit. We pretend that racism or hate is some how a social construct, without any evolutionary basis. It is proposed that hatred can be solved by correct thinking - like lust can be cured by a cold shower. Humans, being infinitely malleable, as the Marxists want us to believe, can be altered by indoctrination, but we should realize by now that Marxist totalitarianism was only able to oppress the expression of racial hatred - not cure it.
Hatred however is our innate motivator to fight back, and it is not activated unless we experience the emotion of fear or disgust. "Recent work in humans by Liz Phelps and Paul Whalen has further implicated the amygdala in social interactions. In separate studies, they found that exposure of white subjects to the faces of unfamiliar African Americans led to amygdala activation, and the degree of activation was directly related to the subjects' score on a test that measures racial biases. Particularly significant is the fact that the bias test was an implicit measure of racial bias. This suggests that implicit (unconscious) tendencies toward racism are reflected in the degree to which the amygdala is activated by stimuli representing the group biased against. This work is taking us into new and provocative areas, but is also raising serious ethical issues for researchers. Given that negative attitudes and biases have their strongest effects on behavior when they are unconscious, and thus cannot be guarded against and compensated for, should researchers inform subjects of these biases? Such studies also force us to confront ethical decisions as a society. How far should we go in using brain imaging to read minds, and how should we use the information we discover? It is testimony to the progress being made that these questions need to be asked." (LeDoux, 2002)
LeDoux goes on to explain how hate is our motivator to fight back, how hate resides in the old reptilian brain, and how fear can flood the brain with neurotransmitters that heighten the state of aggression and hate, until it becomes learned and internalized. Once we come to hate the other, however that hate was activated, it will not go away easily. We may however submit to indoctrination, even to the point of answering questionnaires with the "proper" response, but deep inside we still have the same feelings. Hate is a deep emotion, molded by evolution to keep us from harm. It can only be activated if a real harm or a perceived harm activates the system - whether through individual experience or mass-media propaganda - and the feelings are internalized for varying lengths of tenure. And the emotions of fear, hatred, racism and disgust are real body-state reactions that are then reflected in our feelings - to be alive is to have these feelings even if we deny they are present. (Damasio, 1999) We can't just reason away disgust, our pattern recognition minds find meaning in how others behave and how they appear. And these emotions existed before language, science or even before postmodernism. We are still just apes with an enlarged neocortex. (Giovannali, 1999)
In fact, recent research on the "theory of mind" shows some rather startling results with regards to human evolution and consciousness. Researchers have located several areas in the brain, including the amygdala, which are involved in emotions that are responsible for our human ability to read the intentionality of others. This faculty is involved in memories about other people to predict their intentions, interprets body language, and generally reads the minds of potential enemies. "It just happens that the best way to predict what people are going to do next is understanding [their] mental state." And as it turns out, this faculty evolved prior to human consciousness or self-reflection. This may seem odd, but as we evolved it was more important for our survival to react to danger than to understand why we had feelings or what they meant. Our primitive brains are attuned to danger from other humans, and this mechanism of hate and fear preempts our need to "understand" our innate hatred and disgust of others - it kept us out of harms way.
OK, maybe our evolved brain did have a need for a quick reacting faculty to react in the face of fear, hate and disgust. But can't we overcome our primitive feelings, learn to be tolerant, and change the way our primitive brain reacts and remembers? It doesn't seem likely: "Through learning we can become better able to perceive the intricacies of a pattern but, finally, learning has nothing whatsoever to do with our experience of the pattern as ugly or beautiful. Similarly, the capacity to experience the emotion of love [or disgust] is not learned; it is merely triggered in a predetermined fashion by some events but not by others." (Robinson, 1996) That is, we can learn to understand our hatred and disgust, but we can't just decide to change the way we perceive our environment. We may be able to learn that a perceived threat is not as salient as we once thought, or we may be mugged and come to realize that certain neighborhoods should be avoided, etc. Or, we can indoctrinate people to feel guilty about the way they feel, but the feelings themselves are real and we have them for good reasons.
So where does hate come from? We know that all behaviors show moderate to high heritability. (Konner, 2002; Robinson, 1996) We also know that rage, fear, grief and disgust are very real distinct emotions - all normal humans have them and the negative emotions are the most real. They were far more important to survival than lust or love. (Konner, 2002) And violence is the most negative emotion of all: "Violence is thrilling and involves a total systemic mobilization of an organism, a transcendence of social rules, and perhaps a triumph over danger. It involves the secretion of adrenaline, a cascade of impulses in the sympathetic nervous system, a flood of blood and nutrients to the muscles, a flushing of the skin - there is every physiological reason for it to be invigorating. It is also one of the easier ways to activate human beings. National economies are often at their strongest when the nations prepare for war, and economic depressions have sometimes ended in such preparations." (Konner, 2002)
Hatred, disgust and fear then are in all of us - and behavioral genetics has shown that different individuals and different races vary with regards to behavioral typologies such as levels of xenophobia (racial hatred or fear), tendency to follow rules, dominance, tolerance, etc. People are just different, and on average, it is not a matter of how tolerant a society is, but how has that society been indoctrinated to tolerate some things and lash out at others. Think of the human behaviors or types of people that have been or are presently untolerated: people who smoke, pedophilias, homosexuals, people who litter, Gypsies, Jews, Anglo-Saxons, capitalists, drunken drivers, nationalists, socialists, reckless drivers, corrupt politicians, horny politicians, atheists, Southern Baptists, dead-beat dads, ad infinitum. Any reasonable person could come up with their own list of people that they hate because those other people are intolerant towards things that we think are perfectly acceptable, and another list of people we hate because of who they are, what they think, or how they behave. No group has a monopoly on the emotions of hate, disgust, and fear - different groups or individuals just have different levels of emotional excitement itself. When these emotions are over-excited, we say they have affective disorders (depression, anxiety, etc.). When they have little or no emotional triggers we call them laid-back, passionless, or emotionally dead.
However, even with all this primitive emotional baggage, haven't we evolved into modern humans, with greatly enhanced cognitive abilities, that rely on rational discussion rather than visceral gut reactions to guide us? Apparently not: "[compared to monkeys] such an emphasis on the familiar is understandable, since humans, at least adult humans, are guided by previously accumulated knowledge to a much larger extent than any other species. To put it in different terms, the ratio of de novo discovery to the previously accumulated body of knowledge is relatively low in adult humans compared to other species. This is because no other species has the mechanism of storing and transmitting the collective knowledge of the species accumulated over many generations in external cultural devices - books, films, and the like. Therefore, our bias toward the familiar serves an adaptive function. By contrast, the assimilation of previously accumulated knowledge in a monkey is limited to imitation of other monkeys' behavior. By and large, a young animal is embarked on a cognitive voyage, discovering its world on its own." (Goldberg, 2001) In short, humans are not very inquisitive, do not think for themselves, but rather follow tradition, including accepting what is currently hated and feared. Intelligence has not transformed us into scientifically empirically based explorers of the truth - most people are tied to the status quo.
We do pride ourselves on being open to science, at least in those areas where science is not in conflict with other human dogmas. We have no hesitancy in admitting that we have visited the moon, that curing cancer is progressing well, and that we can make cars safer. On the other hand, we reject scientific progress when it comes to what it means to be intelligent, have humans evolved from monkeys, what is the meaning of race and racial differences, is there a god, and why do humans engage in warfare. Any scientific concern that treads on our very sense of human uniqueness is difficult to discuss in a forthright and open manner - we revert to following folk knowledge.
Let's look at the issue of differences in intelligence between the races. Modern dogma deals with this intractable issue in two ways - we deny that race exists and that intelligence is grounded in science. The debate of course goes in circles, as the scientists who empirically investigate these issues are vilified rather than given a fair hearing - hatred, intolerance, fear and disgust are shown towards any behavioral geneticist who engages in looking at human differences in behavioral traits or intelligence. And yet, "Being smart (or dumb) is not an attribute of you; it is you. Peculiarly, a certain degree of independence exists between this global dimension of human mind and the more narrow special traits. An individual may be devoid of any special talents, musical, literary, or athletic, yet be considered by others to be very smart. The opposite is also possible, when a uniquely gifted individual is nonetheless perceived as dumb." (Goldberg, 2001)
While society denies that race has any meaning, or that what intelligence means can be scientifically studied, the geneticists are unfolding the mysteries denied by Marxists. For example, we have long known that the genetic component of intelligence increases as we mature. That is, children are far more malleable with regards to intelligence and with special programs and training, it seems that their intelligence can be improved. So why does this malleability or environmental component of intelligence fade as we mature? "The age of 18 is also the age when the maturation of the frontal lobes is relatively complete. Various estimates can be used to measure the course of maturation of various brain structures. Among the most commonly used such measures is pathway myelinization. Long pathways connecting different parts of the brain are covered with white fatty tissue called myelin. Myelin insulates the pathway and speeds the neural signal transmission along the pathway. The presence of myelin makes communication between different parts of the brain faster and more reliable. Obviously, long-distance communication is particularly important for the frontal lobes, the CEO of the brain, since their role is to coordinate the activities of its many parts. The frontal lobes cannot fully assume their leadership role until the pathways connecting the frontal lobes with the far-flung structures of the brain are fully myelinated." (Goldberg, 2001)
This seems rather self-evident. If the brain keeps changing genetically (and the degree of myelinization is under strictly genetic, not environmental control), then the relative contributions from genes rather than environment can also change over time - adult intelligence then is about 80% genetic versus only about 40% genetic in children. Without understanding these changes in brain structure, early intervention in enrichment programs for Blacks and other minorities seemed to make a difference. Now, we hear little about these enrichment programs, rather the whole educational system is blamed, along with racism. They keep shooting the messenger.
And even evolutionists lose their nerve when it comes to the intelligence-racial differences taboo. Konner states that, "And the abuses are not over. Today in Communist China, thousands are sterilized each year because they are judged to have inadequate mental capacity to reproduce. In Afghanistan, women are so stigmatized by a religious gloss of their biological status that they can no longer practice any profession or even leave their homes without a man. In the United States and France, race is regularly invoked in legitimate discourse to explain why different ethnic groups perform at different levels in certain kinds of tests or tasks - differences that can easily be explained in other ways. And some scientists take very public platforms to raise doubts about the efficacy of schools, parents, health advisors, and others who attempt to shape human behavior in the face of powerful and pervasive biological forces." (Konner, 2002) What other ways? Konner offers no proof or explanation, he just alludes to other scientific explanations and then avoids the issue for the next 400 pages. And when he does return to intelligence he obfuscates even more:
"This seems like an irrelevant subtlety [where one test is used to predict correlations], until we realize that much of human behavioral genetics, especially the genetics of intelligence, has discounted such interaction effects or, in some cases, invented them. A classic bad example came at the end of Arthur Jensen's 1968 monograph attempting to show race differences in intelligence. Claiming to have shown that known race differences in intelligence were genetically based - he had not shown this, nor have others shown it since - he irrelevantly and dangerously went on to conclude that intervention programs in schools and preschools are pretty useless. Indeed the very title of the paper, 'How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?,' implied this unwarranted conclusion." If this quote sounds confusing and baseless, it of course is. (Konner, 2002) Reading Konner's book, he seems to be very aware of intelligence and its genetic basis, but apparently he feels he must quickly, in just a page or two, dismiss the issue while studying the human emotion of "gluttony" in no less than 29 pages of in-depth analysis. This is a very typical response on the part of many academics who feel they must at least mention intelligence or racial differences in their writings - they make short, inconclusive inferences to a couple of issues and move on, as if they have just proven that the world really is flat and we don't need to discuss it any further.
If humans are so much smarter than other species, and humans at least act as if they are rational, what makes most humans act counter to pure science in favor of emotional bias? Damasio (1999) states:
"For the purpose of investigating these phenomena, I separate three stages of processing along a continuum: a state of emotion, which can be triggered and executed nonconsciously; a state of feeling, which can be represented nonconsciously; and a state of feeling made conscious, i.e., known to the organism having both emotion and feeling….
"For example, work from my laboratory has shown that emotion is integral to the processes of reasoning and decision making, for worse and for better. This may sound a bit counterintuitive, at first, but there is evidence to support it. The findings come from the study of several individuals who were entirely rational in the way they ran their lives up to the time when, as a result of neurological damage in specific sites of their brains, they lost a certain class of emotions and, in a momentous parallel development, lost their ability to make rational decisions. Those individuals can still use the instruments of their rationality and can still call up the knowledge of the world around them. Their ability to tackle the logic of a problem remains intact. Nonetheless, many of their personal and social decisions are irrational, more often disadvantageous to their selves and to others than not. I have suggested that the delicate mechanism of reasoning is no longer affected, nonconsciously and on occasion even consciously, by signals hailing from the neural machinery that underlies emotion….
"A shared biological core underlies all these phenomena, and it can be outlined as follows: (1) Emotions are complicated collections of chemical and neural responses, forming a pattern; all emotions have some kind of regulatory role to play, leading in one way or another to the creation of circumstances advantageous to the organism exhibiting the phenomenon; emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life. (2) Notwithstanding the reality that learning and culture alter the expression of emotions and give emotions new meanings, emotions are biologically determined processes, depending on innately set brain devices, laid down by a long evolutionary history."
Emotions then are deeply embedded activating devices, with the purpose of giving us motivation to act on feelings for our survival - and hate, fear and disgust are very important emotions to have. Without our personal autobiographical selves, our own personal synaptic patterns that interact with our emotions, we cease to be who we are. We are our synaptic selves - including our hatreds, biases, loves, gluttony, and anger. To have any of these patterns altered by propaganda or brain washing is to lose who we are as individuals. (LeDoux, 2002)
In Looking for Spinoza Damasio states, "The first device, emotion, enabled organisms to respond effectively but not creatively to a number of circumstances conducive or threatening to life - 'good for life' or 'bad for life' circumstances, 'good for life' or 'bad for life' outcomes. The second device, feeling, introduced a mental alert for the good or bad circumstances and prolonged the impact of emotions by affecting attention and memory lastingly. Eventually, in a fruitful combination with past memories, imagination, and reasoning, feelings led to the emergence of foresight and the possibility of creating novel, nonstereotypical responses."
So when it comes to hatred, disgust, or racism, we must ask how have our experiences, whether innate or learned, molded us to better adapt to our environments? Is it not safer to feel animosity towards those who may harm us, who want money from us, who declare that they are morally superior to us, etc.? Why would evolution make humans in such a way that we would be passive in the face of threats from those who would harm us? There is very often good reason why group X hates group Y - because group Y is in fact a real or perceived threat to group X. It is irrelevant to our emotional system whether the threat is real or not, a perceived threat activates our motivational system to act in such a way that we will not be harmed. To act any differently would be evolutionarily dysfunctional. Yet, we constantly berate whole societies, nations, or classes of people without recognizing how our emotional faculties are driving us towards a defensive stance.
As a nation, our handlers are trying to indoctrinate every man, women and child into the egalitarian dogma that groups can and should coexist peaceably. But how do those same handlers deal with the contingencies of danger:
"Even a cursory observer of the 1990-91 mobilization of thousands of all political persuasions to animosity toward 'Saddam' (or in Iraq and Jordan, toward 'Bush') is tempted to grant that we were witnessing a hysteria, for want of a better term, of massive proportions. Just days prior to this collective 'effervescence,' as Émile Durkheim might have called it, Saddam Hussein was being courted as a stalwart defender of 'civilized values' against Iranian fanaticism and Syrian terrorism. Iraq now lies in smoking ruins and anarchy, witness to American fickleness and technological might; the United States treats Syria, its recent 'implacable foe,' as a long lost prodigal child; Iran, meanwhile, obsequiously curries favor with the late 'great Satan,' America; and America in turn finds itself allied with the former 'evil empire,' Russia. The capacity of entire populations to shift radically their allegiances and hatreds virtually overnight betrays what seems to be an unplumbed depth of hostility in the human psyche. This leads to consideration of a second paradox in the sociology of enemies.
"Popular legend teaches that culture and ideology - the so-called ideational realm - serve only to legitimize society's goings-on after the fact, the political-economic substructure of social life, 'the real world.' Technically, they are said to be causally 'dependent' rather than 'independent' variables in social conflicts. Without engaging the veracity of this legend directly, in these pages I assume the opposite position. I argue that political and economic activities serve 'ideal,' 'spiritual' ends. It is not simply because Saddam threatened our oil resources that American parents embraced so enthusiastically the state's call to offer their children on the shrine of Mars. It is also that Americans had in the prior months been deprived of an idea that for half a century had bound them as a people - anti-Communism - and thus they needed an enemy. Without one there could be no heroic community with which to identify.
"In the months immediately preceding the Persian Gulf war such issues as illiteracy, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, the trade imbalance, Daniel Ortega, and 'Panamanian strongman' Manuel Noriega had all momentarily captured the public's interest, but none sustained it. This evidently was because they did not contain the exact mix of non-Caucasian racial type, alien language and confession, 'uncivilized' life-style, and suitably dangerous - 'battle-hardened' - but not insurmountable armed force required for credibility as a bona fide American enemy. Although admittedly this is an overdrawn claim, it may be argued that America needed a petty Hitler, and thus set about manufacturing one to meet its specifications. Its name: Saddam.
"This is not to say that Saddam Hussein, out of his own stupidity, greed, and treachery, did not freely stumble into the strobe projected by the American psyche, thereby becoming arch-demon in a reenactment of the American drama of world redemption. Nor am I saying that American military, industrial, and petrochemical elites did not have their own financial and political interests at stake in a Persian Gulf crisis. But this hardly explains why the common folk, who paid with their lives, children, and property to enhance those interests, seized upon the possibility of fighting with such evident jubilation.
"The second paradox of the enemy: There can be no harmony without chaos, no peace without war. While groups ostensibly fight only to secure their own short-term interests at the expense of others, the latent 'function' or unintended end of such fights is social solidarity." (Aho, 1994)
James Aho does not seem to understand the underlying evolutionary basis of human hate and disgust, but he certainly feels it in these words. And today we see it all around us in the vilification of all that is Arab and or Islamic. The Muslim world has become the new evil empire, even if it has failed to establish a sustainable means at empire building without the underpinning of oil. Nonetheless, our collective psyches, at least a large percentage of the population, now holds the Arab portion of the Semitic race in contempt. Our emotions have detected a threat, and our feelings now motivate us to hate the other - whether that hatred was brought about through personal reflection or propaganda by our handlers - the media and the government (academia being in quite a quandary).
So how do scientists who embrace evolution feel about the emotion of hate, disgust, fear and racism? "On a practical note, understanding the biology of emotions and the fact that the value of each emotion differs so much in our current human environment, offers considerable opportunities for understanding human behavior. We can learn, for example, that some emotions are terrible advisors and consider how we can either suppress them or reduce the consequences of their advice. I am thinking, for example, that reactions that lead to racial and cultural prejudices are based in part on the automatic deployment of social emotions evolutionarily meant to detect difference in others because difference may signal risk or danger, and promote withdrawal or aggression. That sort of reaction probably achieved useful goals in a tribal society but is no longer useful, let alone appropriate, to ours. We can be wise to the fact that our brain still carries the machinery to react in the way it did in a very different context ages ago. And we can learn to disregard such reactions and persuade others to do the same." (Damasio, 2003)
My question to Damasio is a simple one - why is it no longer appropriate to be wary of others who may hate us or try to take advantage of us, and who exactly is going to be doing the persuading that we should all passively stand down, and let others do as they wish? I often find it strange, as an advocate of eugenics, that I am almost singularly in defense of not eliminating any innate behavioral trait because we cannot predict the future well enough to disarm ourselves unilaterally. Yet that is what Damasio is asking us to do - destroy our nuclear weapons while we let our enemies retain theirs. It is a formula for disaster!
A more judicious stance is offered by Robinson:
"It seems reasonable to propose that the cerebral emotions are triggered by environmental events or circumstances that, during the last period of evolutionary development, were linked in some way to the welfare of small social groups and where behaviors motivated by these emotions could increase the likelihood that the community would survive and prosper. One concludes, like Jung, that there is a range of environmental events, circumstances, or symbols that have the capacity to trigger the emotions of love and hate together with associated behavioral tendencies. These genetically determined event-emotion-behavior relationships constitute the wisdom of the ages, and they would appear to be the source of all moral and aesthetic knowledge." (Robinson, 1996)
Or this one written in 1919 by Pillsbury: "At the other extreme stand the incentives to cooperate, the impulses of self-sacrifice for the social unit upon which depends the formation of nation and state. In this discussion we must distinguish the cooperative from the antagonistic social instincts. The first serve to hold the group together and further the interests of its members. Opposed to these are the instincts of cooperative defense and aggression, instincts which unite the members of one whole against another for the sake of advancement at the expense of the other. The one makes possible the organization of the peaceful society, the other the organization for war. The second in a measure depends upon the first, but contains elements of self-sacrifice that are not required for it. The one presupposes life together in the absence of hostile tribes, the other is a development of a life of conflict between rival groups. It is probable that the second may have been the first to develop - that only when there were dangerous rival tribes was it necessary to form a larger social grouping. However this may be, it is certain that at present we can see traces of each. We may begin with a treatment of the cooperative or intra-social instincts or forces and pass on later to the instincts of hate and conflict, the inter-social….
"Were one to take a militaristic view of the world it would be possible to argue that it is hate of the opposition that furnishes all of the real incentives of life, that if war and hating were to stop, all progress would stop and we would drop down to a monotonous stage of little endeavor. All progress, on this view, has been derived from conflict, and when conflict ceases there will be little incentive to endeavor. One need not go so far as this to see that the emotion of hate and the instincts of opposition are important, and that it is hard to exaggerate the part which they play in the control of modern life, even if one should attempt to avoid special pleading. I remember hearing a distinguished scientist, a resident of an eastern city, say at the beginning of the war in 1914 that he had never before known the joys of unrestrained hate, particularly of unrestrained hate in unison with others." (Pillsbury, 1919)
Maybe in 1919 we had a better perspective of human nature before the Marxists took over academia, and shoved Boasian egalitarianism down our throats - a set of moralizing gods we seem unable to shed even with our knowledge of the human genome, cognitive neuroscience, behavior genetics, and all the other wonderful knowledge unavailable almost 100 years ago.
Evolutionists continue to debate the power of group selection - that is, does selection occur only at the level of the organism, at the level of kin or family, or can it also take place at the level of the group. All of these mechanism are possible, and the only question is how powerful each one is with respect to the other.
At the very least, we do know that in the animal kingdom, individuals will sacrifice themselves for the defense of the group. Chimpanzees for example will collectively attack a leopard, resulting in great excitement, throwing their arms around each other at successfully dispatching the threat, and they do it with sheer joy and excitement. (Konner, 2002) Likewise, humans, to varying degrees will form coalitions during times of threat, risking their individual safety for the group. This is hardly evolution at the individual level alone. Something makes humans come together, innately, to form coalitions when harm is present. In addition, this is especially so when that harm is seen as martial, rather than just material. "This is consistent with many studies: training programs designed to increase aggression (in the military and combat sports, for example) are more successful than those designed to decrease it. Worse still, once acquired, such behavior is difficult to extinguish." (Konner, 2002) It seems that humans, like chimpanzees, have a natural inclination towards collective aggression, or blood lust, for the protection of the group once a real and impending threat is perceived (and can now be activated by any government engaged in propaganda - including democratic ones with a free press). This tendency is why humans will continue to engage in warfare, or its equivalent of economic destruction.
Konner explains that, "Discouragingly, these episodes are abetted by the most natural of human social fears. Xenophobia draws upon the natural fear of strangers; conformity - the fear of appearing strange - draws on the fear of separation; and obedience to authority, including illegitimate authority, draws on the fear of stepping out of one's place in the dominance hierarchy. Fears that served us adaptively during our evolution ultimately cause reprehensible acts. Imagine now an alternative situation. Instead of placing the human targets of the irrational fear in a small minority living among the multitude, we place them in a separate but juxtaposed arena and make them a comparable multitude. Now, make the turning outward of fear mutual. Soon the fears will cease to be irrational; each multitude, precisely because of its fear, will pose a threat to the other. This is the classic setting of mimesis, which anthropologist Rene Girard has identified as fundamental to any episode of agonistic violence. Each antagonist mimics the other, justifying his worst fears and provoking yet more threats to be mimicked. But the irrational component can always be depended on to distort the threat upward, thus the positive feedback cycle that leads to war." (Konner, 2002) We are now witnessing the above scenario in the Middle East - the American public has been stirred up aggressively, and this violence will be escalated throughout the Middle East as they feel threatened by our jingoistic stance.
Human behavior or personality types are about 50% genetic, and genes are now known to influence religious, political, ethnocentric, and numerous other attitudes - and if they vary between individuals it can be expected that they vary between races. As an example, what if there is a genetic basis for Semitic people's leaning towards a natural reliance on religion (radical Islam) while the Japanese seem to shun religion. If this is true, should we expect them to easily give up their view of government as one that should be dictated by Allah rather than by democratic principles? What if there are real differences genetically between Europeans and Semites, making representative democracy much easier for us to accept?
Robinson writes, "The whole of literature is made up of attempts to describe the most powerful archetypal scenarios and the responses to these scenarios of heroes and villains motivated by the self-transcending emotions of love and hate and not merely by the brutish and self-serving pursuit of pleasure or avoidance of pain that has been the bedrock of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. In recent times, many authors have recognized that the psychological conflict of humanity, our propensity for great creative achievements alongside the most pathologically destructive behaviors, has become a threat to the whole planet. In this book, the 'human predicament' is explained by reference to the evolution of high intelligence and stronger self-transcending emotions. It is argued that these attributes initially enhanced our prospects for survival and led to the ascendancy of humankind over all other life-forms. Ultimately, however, these developments carry a sting in the tail, and they could be the seeds of our own destruction. As we create material and social environments that are artificial and alien, we not only suffer the more obvious physical consequences, such as asthma and cancer epidemics, but less obviously our genetically determined psychological responses to these alien material and social environments become increasingly inappropriate, destructive, and pathological." (Robinson, 1996)
Self-transcending emotions are those that will drive an individual to fight to the death for a cause, to blow themselves up to try and defeat an enemy. Hate, disgust and fear are extremely powerful emotions for collective action, as anger and jealousy are powerful emotions for lashing out at kin or an enemy as individuals. Both collective violence, and individual dominance that can sometimes lead to violence, have powerful selective advantages from our evolutionary past. How are we to prevent war when we take no action to prevent the fear, hate and disgust that eventually leads to war? The media everywhere is filled with stories of class, race and national injustices where none exist - and where they might exist they are often distorted beyond reasonableness.
"As already noted, we cannot account for the great achievements of humanity merely by reference to intelligence. Intelligence only ever achieves anything in the service of emotion, and all behavior is motivated by emotion. The original value of the self-transcending emotions seems clear. They enabled individuals to live successfully in social groups by motivating behaviors that placed the welfare of the group above the welfare of the individual. More specifically, one can say that they motivated individuals to identify with a group and to preserve what is good for that group in the social and material environment while prohibiting or destroying what is bad for the group. Good and bad are determined by the past experience of the species and, most immediately, by the genetic endowment of the individual." (Robinson, 1996)
Now we live in a world where neighboring tribes are no longer the antagonists, where genetic differences were slight. Due to migrations, races that are far more different in looks, intelligence, and behavior are expected to live side by side without conflict. Is it reasonable to assume that each race is going to agree on what is just and fair in every situation? Hardly, and history shows that conflict is to be expected - not peace and harmony. Only an authoritarian or totalitarian state can keep races from attacking each other either politically or violently. And the greater the distance between races, the greater the antagonisms, especially when it comes to intelligence, and to a lesser degree xenophobia.
A new book out entitled World on Fire by Amy Chua is sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read. Its premise is that where minorities can be oppressed by democratic means, they will be, according to reviews that I have read. Kevin MacDonald looks at the same conflicts, but he uses a group evolutionary strategy approach. In his second edition (2002b) of A people That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples, dealing with Jewish-gentile conflicts, he has added: Gypsies, Amish & Hutterites, Calvanists & Puritans, and Ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia.
With regards to group evolution, MacDonald writes, "I am continually amazed at the extent to which evolutionists have been indoctrinated - mainly by Richard Dawkins - against supposing that groups have any important role to play in human evolution. The problem comes about for two reasons: Failure to comprehend cultural group selection, and failure to appreciate the extent to which selection between groups has shaped the human mind…. There is a critical difference between humans and other animals that renders all of the arguments against group selection moot. It is simply this: Humans are able to solve the free-rider problem by monitoring and enforcing compliance to group goals. So far as we know, animals can't do this. As a result, although there may well be limits on the extent to which natural selection can build stable cohesive groups, much less altruistic groups, in the absence of massive genetic overlap, these limits do not apply to humans." (MacDonald, 2002b)
Discussing how monitoring human compliance within the group he states, "The egalitarian ethic thus makes it difficult for individuals to increase their fitness at the expense of other individuals in the same group, resulting in relative behavioral uniformity and relatively weak selection pressures within groups. Mild forms of social control, such as gossip and withholding social benefits, are usually sufficient to control would-be dominators, but more extreme measures, such as ostracism and execution, are recorded in the ethnographic literature. By controlling behavioral differences within groups and increasing behavioral differences between groups, Boehm cogently argues that the egalitarian ethic shifted the balance between levels of selection and made selection between groups an important force in human evolution."
Gypsies are an interesting case study of a people that have established a rigid boundary between themselves and all other people. As early as the 15th century, Gypsies were moving into Europe from the East, and were soon recognized as a people whose group evolutionary strategy was that of the bottom-feeder. They were engaged in petty theft, pick pocketing, fortunetelling, dishonest tradering, and today have included welfare fraud. What is so fascinating about the Gypsies is that they take such a racialist moral stance against others, "The [Gypsies] think of themselves as morally superior, and this self-appraisal is not threatened by the oftentimes negative attitudes held by the [others]. They enjoy deceiving the [others] and do their best to prevent outsiders from getting information about them, so much so that obtaining information about them is difficult and much of what they tell anthropologists must be taken with a grain of salt. 'For the [Gypsies], the maintenance of boundaries between themselves and [outsiders]... is a continuous, almost daily concern. It is based on two factors: (a) social contact with [others] is limited to specific kinds of relationships, namely economic exploitation and political manipulation for advantage. Purely social relations and genuine friendship are virtually impossible because of the second factor; (b) a whole symbolic system and set of rules for behavior (romania) which place [others] outside social, moral, and religious boundaries in a multiplicity of ways, the most important being their [ritually unclean] status.'" (MacDonald, 2002b)
Clearly, a race does not have to be superior to feel superior - Gypsies have a low average IQ of about 85, have few skills, and find nothing wrong in stealing and begging. The innate xenophobia of the Gypsies make them truly a race apart - and a race that will never accept any type of assimilation or equal justice with the rest of society. Regrettably they have not been paid as much attention in Europe as let's say the Jews, because we seem to tolerate or have less fear of petty thieves than we do of those who dominate us from above.
The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are far more similar to the Jews in Europe when it comes to boundary maintenance and domination in wealth accumulation. Like the Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, the oversees Chinese are also far more intelligent than the Southeast Asians they dominate, by about 15 IQ points on average (105 to 90). The most populous countries where the oversees Chinese have dominated include Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, and the Philippines.
"The Chinese, as a non-indigenous ethnic minority, have tended to have fewer political rights in these societies. Chinese assimilation to the indigenous society has long been an issue, at least partly because for much of their history in Southeast Asia the great majority of overseas Chinese remained non-citizen aliens in their adopted countries, their identity focused mainly on China. Complicating issues of identity has been the fact that the overseas Chinese were economically successful throughout southeast Asia and assumed a dominant economic position in several southeast Asian countries." (MacDonald, 2002b)
MacDonald points out an interesting case of assimilation and boundary maintenance in Indonesia. At first, Chinese males emigrated to Indonesia and married Indonesian women, and now make up a distinct racial group. Later, the Chinese males immigrated to Indonesia along with Chinese women, and now they make up a community that maintains their racial boundaries. So we have three separate groups in Indonesia - the indigenous Indonesians who are economically impoverished, the better off mixed race of Indonesian-Chinese, and the pure Chinese who dominate the Indonesian economy with the complicity and help of the indigenous Indonesian elite. As a minority, the Chinese are vulnerable because of their perceived economic exploitation of less intelligent Indonesians.
The lack of assimilation between the three races in Indonesia are maintained by the high levels of xenophobia or ethnocentrism of the Chinese, not unlike Semitic boundary maintenance between Jews and gentiles in Europe and tribalism throughout the Middle East.
It is often claimed that East Asians do well because they emphasize education - that is family discipline and an emphasis on hard work to excel at school. But MacDonald points out that, "In mid-20th century Thailand, the Chinese community did not value education but concentrated completely on commercial success, with training coming from experience in the firm rather than from formal education. The Chinese college graduates 'have no intellectual effect on the Chinese community. They do not write for the press or lecture, nor do they ordinarily become leaders of any associations. In the Chinese community, wealth rather than scholarship is the spur.'" (MacDonald, 2002b)
Contrast the above with Jews in Western nations, where the Holocaust is a veritable religion, and anti-Semitism flourishes more from the perception that Jews dominate politics rather than merely being economically dominate, and it makes one wonder how Jews have been so successful without overt hostilities over the last fifty years. "Jews see themselves as quintessential victims living among eternally oppressive cultures. As an exemplar, Holocaust activist Simon Wiesenthal compiled a calendar showing when, where and by whom Jews were persecuted on every day of the year. Among contemporary Jews, Holocaust consciousness is the ultimate expression of a victim mentality." (MacDonald, 2002b)
MacDonald notes that, "Powerful and competitive middleman minority groups in developing countries suppress nascent middle class traders, entrepreneurs, and artisans. We have seen that the development of these classes was suppressed in Thailand and Indonesia by the Overseas Chinese. Similarly, in Poland when Jews won the economic competition in early modern Poland, the result was that the vast majority of Poles had been reduced to the status of agricultural laborer supervised by Jewish estate managers in an economy where virtually all of the trade, manufacturing, and artisanry were controlled by Jews. On the other hand, in most of Western Europe Jews were expelled in the Middle Ages. As a result, when modernization occurred, it was accomplished with an indigenous middle class. Indeed, the Puritans are a prototypical middle class group. I have noted that the Puritans derived mainly from tradesmen and craftsmen, and they were intelligent and very concerned with education. If, as in Poland, Jews had won the economic competition in most of these professions, there would have not have been a non-Jewish middle class in England. Whatever one might suppose would have been the fortunes and character of England with predominantly Jewish artisans, merchants, and manufacturers, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Christian taxpayers of England made a good investment in their own future when they agreed to pay King Edward I a massive tax of £116,346 in return for expelling 2000 Jews in 1290." (MacDonald, 2002b)
If other races do whatever they can to extract as many benefits as they can from competing races, what should the White response be? So far, we have caved in on virtually every demand by minority groups: racial preferences, contract or business set asides, transfer of wealth through welfare and educational programs, forced integration, open immigration, etc. Surveys show that we do not want to live around Blacks. Is that a racist response or a rational response. "Once an emotional habit is well learned, the brain systems involved in expressing it become simpler. The amygdala, for example, drops out of the circuit. After you know how to successfully avoid a specific danger, you no longer need the amygdala, because fear is no longer aroused. A dog needs its amygdala to learn that playing around in the road is dangerous, but once the learning has occurred, he can happily play in the yard next to the road. (In this case, avoidance of danger doesn't arouse fear, it prevents fear.)" (LeDoux, 2002)
It seems that rationally then, to reduce fear, Whites should in fact live as far away from Blacks, as well as Hispanics, two groups that are more violent and prone to crime than Whites. To do otherwise is in fact irrational. Why would anyone want to live in fear in order to abide by the moralizing god of antiracism? Furthermore, Blacks can be far more extroverted, verbal, gregarious, etc. than Whites, resulting in a sense of disgust. It seems that racial groups, to reduce hate, disgust and fear, should in fact take steps to reduce these emotions - and that includes living with others that are more similar.
Advances in how the brain works, may give as a great deal of insight as to why so many minorities, including Blacks and Jews, feel they have been discriminated against when in fact they have not. The brain is always trying to make sense of what has happened, and if it needs to it will fabricate a story, and one that will make the person feel better or get more sympathy for their situation. "In a simplified view the right hemisphere deals with emotions and imagination, and functions without the capacity to relate present experiences to the past or the future. This is quite unlike the left hemisphere, which is analytical and rational, and constantly strives to find meaning in experiences and to place them into an overall context. The evolutionary advantage of seeking explanations for why events occur may be that our ancestors were better able to respond to recurring events and not merely treat them as if they were happening for the first time. It appears that an unfortunate aspect of this survival trait is that the left hemisphere, in attempting to ascribe meaning to events, often incorrectly links cause and effect, thereby creating a false memory of events and their meanings." (Giovannali, 1999)
So now if anything bad happens, it is because of racial profiling or discrimination on the job - never the fault of the oppressed person. In fact, though I am still agnostic about all sides of the story regarding the Nazi extermination camps versus slave camps where Jews died of disease and malnutrition, it does seem that from the numerous contradictory stories of victims after WWII, that many of the accounts have to be doubted from what we know of first person inaccuracies. From Nazis being tortured by the Soviets to fabricate stories, to deranged inmates, numerous stories abounded - only to be suppressed later for a single standard version. (Graf, 2001)
So is there any real rational or empirical approach to social structure. It would seem that even most scientists, when trying to be rational, will end up more with hope for peace and stability than with any real prescription for bringing it about. So as we have become more multicultural, and less cohesive in accepting of any mainstream religion, our handlers have had to try and provide us with another set of moralizing gods in place of empiricism:
"Before the dawn of human civilization, our ancestors lived in a hostile world with little if any social structure on which to rely for protection and sustenance. They survived by relying on evolved instincts that were equal to the hostility around them. Those same instincts are in all of us and can be seen today in our natural drive for self-preservation. For society to work, those primal instincts must be controlled through moral and legal codes in exchange for the benefits we derive from being part of society. However, our nature is such that most of us require that our moral codes, and in some cases our legal codes, derive from a higher authority than man. Given our social evolution and the nature of our brains, we seem to accept moral caveats more readily if they are part of a mythology that rewards us with emotionally satisfying answers to our questions, and with a sense of purpose, dignity, and hope for the future - things which mere mortals seem unable to provide. By failing to marry faith with reason, and by failing to teach reasoned ethics to the masses without myth, these noble experiments have exposed the reality of the mental processes we inherited from our pre-linguistic ancestors. The vast majority of us perceive the world through instinctive or learned emotional responses to symbols, not through rational analysis. While the irrational majority relates to the world through emotion-evoking mythological, cultural, and other symbols, only a small minority perceives the world with the dispassionate, rational analysis of a scientist. With the majority requiring unreasoned myth to control its passions and anxieties, it should be no surprise that minorities with different myths or no myths must pay the price for the majority's irrational perceptions and actions." (Giovannali, 1999)
I wish I had a simple answer for why Whites would totally internalize the self-transcending moralizing-gods of diversity, antiracism, multiculturalism, and open immigration. These are all inimical to our quality of life - and yet many dare not stand up and declare: "where is the evidence that this is working?" Every social indicator shows that we are losing our country and losing our way of life - and our own elite have a heavy hand in making us accept these moralizing gods. The elite gains moral capital (along with cheap foreign labor and sponsoring feel-good charities) while sacrificing little. They have the means to escape to their protected enclaves while the rest of us have to interact in tension between the disparate races.
These are the dilemmas of our democracy: opinion polls only reflect yesterday's propaganda; "if manipulation is to be effective, no one must know what the manipulators are doing"; and the elite must shape public opinion to support the current governmental policies. When those policies favor some races over others, and Whites do not vote for candidates who will benefit Whites over other races, it is apparent that if the trend continues long enough, hostilities will erupt. (Of course, this is true between any two groups - Blacks hostile to Jews, Hispanics from Mexico hostile to Puerto Ricans, African Americans hostile to recent Nigerian immigrants, and it is in a constant state of flux. Stability is out of the question.) (Giovannali, 1999)
Whites however are the most vulnerable of any race, even though we are still in the majority. We have innately high levels of altruistic moralism, where we will punish other Whites for not showing enough compassion for the downtrodden. Only Western nations, founded by Europeans, have opened their doors to refugees from anywhere in the world - without concern for their own benefit. We tolerate crime, AIDS, and will go out of our way to punish any White who objects to immigration or would dare to imply that some groups are more prosperous because they are innately more intelligent. These taboos are suppressed to varying degrees in every Western nation. We are a self-flagellating race, more prone to help the other and oppress our own than the other way around - no wonder we are so easily duped and manipulated. But we can overcome these weaknesses, and suspend maladaptive compassion, once we understand how our biological nature operates, and how it is different from other races. We are a race of cooperators, individualists, prone to open markets and free competition without regards to the other's race. But we errantly expect the same in return - and must learn that that will not be the case. (MacDonald, 2002b)
An exciting new field may help us sort out just how different Whites are from other races: "Neuroanatomists have known for a long time that individual 'noi vial' brains differ profoundly in overall size, relative sizes of different parts, and proportions. More recent findings suggest that individual brain biochemistry is also highly variable. These differences are particularly pronounced in the frontal lobes. Is there a relationship between the variability of human brains and the variability of human minds? In particular, are the differences in decision-making styles related to the differences in the anatomy and chemistry of the frontal lobes? We are only beginning to ask these questions, and by so doing, we are laying the grounds for a new discipline, the neuropsychology of individual and group differences. In due time, we may be able to understand the contribution of individual neural differences to individual cognitive differences. But the inquiry will proceed in steps, first by establishing this relationship with respect to groups rather than individuals." (Goldberg, 2001)
Note the emphasis on differences between groups, rather than between individuals. Frankly, it is easier to study groups because by aggregating known differences in the average behavior of groups, differences in behavior can be correlated with differences in brain anatomy. But it should be obvious to anyone that brains are not all the same or equal. With 100,000 years of different races living under different ecologies as well as different cultures, we should expect differences to evolve in the genetic nature of how humans behave. Note that I am not talking about any radical mutations, though they also occur. Rather, I am talking about normal differences between individuals being altered in the average expression of the group or race. For example, the selection of genes for both extroversion and intelligence could be increased in racial group A, whereas ethnocentrism and rule following could be selected in group B. There in no reason to expect that any two groups, given selection pressures, will not have at least some minor behavioral group differences on average.
The levels of fear that individuals express can also vary with regards to groups. "When the emotion is fear, the special state may be advantageous - provided the fear is justified and not the result of an incorrect assessment of the situation or the symptom of a phobia. Justified fear is an excellent insurance policy, of course. It has saved or bettered many lives." (Damasio, 2003) What if the level of fear and disgust that the average Ashkenazi Jews have had for Whites has bordered on being a phobia - exacerbated by both indoctrination and genetic selection beyond all reasonableness of the actual danger involved? Could that fear not cause an adverse reaction periodically against Jews by Whites, when conditions warranted a fearful reaction? Is anti-Semitism an exaggerated fear of Jews, or a reaction against Jews because of their exaggerated levels of fear, hate and disgust of Whites? Simply note, which race is obsessed with victimhood and which one is oblivious to past transgressions? It seems obvious to me that Whites in general probably have far too little innate ethnocentrism for their own reasonable protection - only unleashing it after a real threat has grown out of control - like our current situation with immigration. Whites have been told repeatedly that in fifty years, we will be a minority, and yet we take little action to prevent what is obviously not in our best interest.
Whites have been indoctrinated into accepting immigration partially because it is a shared American value. "Not surprisingly, I believe that ethical behaviors depend on the workings of certain brain systems. But the systems are not centers - we do not have one or a few 'moral centers.' Not even the ventromedial prefrontal cortex should be conceived as a center. Moreover, the systems that support ethical behaviors are probably not dedicated to ethics exclusively. They are dedicated to biological regulation, memory, decision-making, and creativity. Ethical behaviors are the wonderful and most useful side effects of those other activities. But I see no moral center in the brain, and not even a moral system, as such." (Damasio, 2003) In short, ethical or moral systems do not exist outside of regulatory systems that were designed to benefit the individual, kin or tribal unit. There simply is no universal moral system that extends beyond the boundaries of what is good for the selection of our genes. Moral systems in the modern world are fabricated from whole cloth to serve - not the goals of society as a whole - but the needs of elite factions. These moralizing gods then serve as justifications for policy and actions to be taken.
Edward O. Wilson states that, "The dark side to the inborn propensity to moral behavior is xenophobia. Because personal familiarity and common interest are vital in social transactions, moral sentiments evolved to be selective. And so it has ever been, and so it will ever be. People give trust to strangers with effort, and true compassion is a commodity in chronically short supply. Tribes cooperate only through carefully defined treaties and other conventions. They are quick to imagine themselves victims of conspiracies by competing groups, and they are prone to dehumanize and murder their rivals during periods of severe conflict. They cement their own group loyalties by means of sacred symbols and ceremonies. Their mythologies are filled with epic victories over menacing enemies." (E. O. Wilson in Baird, 1999)
This generalization may be true, but there are obviously differences between individuals and between different races. If Whites lean towards cooperation, trust, compassion and individualism, it means that we are extremely vulnerable to manipulation and extortion by other more ethnocentric races. In addition, our situation is even more bedeviling because as an intelligent, creative and cooperative race, we have far exceeded any other race in producing modern society, so we have lulled ourselves into a sense of false confidence.
We must then learn to control our compassion and moral altruism or it will destroy us. This is what Wilson above has not understood, even though he is considered to be the father of sociobiology: races are not all the same in behavioral traits. If one race accepts moral constraints on their behavior, because of say "collective guilt" or a shared sense of "we must help all those in need," one can be assured that there are manipulators who are duping us into behaving not for our own good - but for theirs.
E.O. Wilson claims that there are two basic kinds of hatred. (Gordan Allport in Baird, 1999) One rational and one that is driven by a hateful temperament. He correctly understands that hatred is a collective emotion triggered by outside threats to oneself or one's tribe. But he errors in assuming that there is in some people a hateful temperament, one that is ready to lash out at any moment for any minor or perceived infractions. In truth, he has failed to differentiate between true hate, disgust and fear, and what could be termed simple aggressive anger or even thrill seeking.
A friend of mine told me a story that while sitting in a bar, the guy next to him asked if he wanted to go outside and fight. Somewhat shocked, he asked why, and was told, "because you look like you would be fun to have a fight with!" That is hooliganism - and it is I believe largely responsible for group formations like skin heads, soccer hooligans, etc. They are not acting out because they are racialists, but more for the excitement that comes from the violence itself. They just need an excuse - they are thrill seekers. This behavior has little to do with collective hatred for defense of the tribe.
When it comes to evolutionary group strategies, that do include stereotyping and racism, it is not a question of why racism exists, but why it is so misunderstood - or is it? In order for a society to bring accusations of racism against individuals or against another race or culture, we must assume that our mental representations are that racism is a default setting. Our innate social mind systems come pre-wired to place people into groups and assign a certain essence to that group, even if we do not apply the stereotype to individuals. Stereotypes do not cause racism. Humans are all racists to some varying extent and stereotypes are naturally applied to different groups, even without supporting empirical evidence. Anecdotal sampling will always be used, no matter how vague or cursory, to be able to size up another groups "essences." Humans can't do otherwise without a great deal of effort - either intellectual or by guilt.
"But then Sidanius and Pratto marshal an impressive amount of evidence to suggest that there is more to dominance than stereotyping, and that the latter is a consequence rather than a cause. In fact, they demonstrate that many dominant group behaviors not only represent a desire to stay with one's group, to favor one's clan, but also to favor one's group in an insidious way that maintains the other group's lower status. Racial stereotypes are among the representations that people create to interpret their own intuition that members of other groups represent a real danger and threaten their own coalitional advantages. Obviously, one possible reason for this blindness to coalitional structures is that they often conflict with our moral standards. This may well explain why many people prefer to consider racism a consequence of sadly misguided concepts rather than a consequence of highly efficient economic strategies." (Boyer, 2001)
One would expect then, that "with increased population density and close proximity of different competing groups, the emotion of hate is inappropriately and increasingly responsible for the destruction of other human beings," (Robinson, 1996) we would all be looking for ways to bring about fairness, rather than playing a game of accusing one race of "racism." Whites alone have been singled out under the antiracism indoctrination campaign, carried out by the media, the government, academia, and numerous NGO's and the United Nation's. How could this happen? Simply stated, Whites have been under a relentless attack that has made us feel guilty, because Whites alone have a standard of altruistic moralism that is universal and not racially based. Whites alone can be easily indoctrinated through guilt to attack their own race in the name of justice, while never questioning the motives of other races. So great is our moral outrage, once we believe a wrong has been committed, that we will be even more severe in punishing our own kind than we will punish members of another race. In terms of evolutionary group strategies, Whites tend to be universal moralists rather than particularistic moralists - or ethnocentric races that will only attack the out group, while holding the ingroup blameless. (MacDonald, 2002a)
The only antidote for this self-poisoning moralism is an intellectual defense. By understanding human nature, and how the games are played by competing groups, we can learn to hate and fear being duped by the indoctrinators. Our emotional systems will be motivated by disgust, hate and fear rather than by imposed guilt. The emotion of guilt is debilitating - meant to alter intratribal behavior. The emotion of hate, fear and disgust is defensive - meant to protect the tribe in intertribal conflicts.
What would happen then, if we lived in a purely multicultural, diverse world without borders or nations, with the United Nations passing laws, without the safety of constitutional constraints? One proposal is as follows:
"The only one of the fundamental instincts which has been important in the formation of nations which would be lacking in the international organization is hate, and its similars, jealousy and suspicion. In Chapter III we traced the importance of hate in uniting the nation against an outside force or other nations. If all the nations were gathered into one, there would be no one to hate; at least, the hatreds would always lead to the disruption of the wider union rather than to its unification. The only substitute for this would be hatred of disruption itself, and of the wars and bad feelings that result. This would not give the same thrills and enthusiasms of hate that are provided by the hatred of persons and groups." (Pillsbury, 1919)
I think this outcome is unlikely, from what we have seen of how Communism dealt with diversity. It wasn't disruption that was suppressed, but whole classes of people, arbitrarily selected for persecution and extermination. A one-world government, unable to assure democratic fairness and justice, would turn to scapegoating to justify all forms of oppression in search of an egalitarian answer to inequality - and the truth of unequal abilities would be banned. Antiracism would become the state religion. "There is nowadays wide agreement that racism is wrong. To describe a policy, law, movement, or nation as racist is to condemn it. It may be thought that since we all agree that racism is wrong, it is unnecessary to speculate on exactly what it is and why it is wrong." (Peter Singer in Baird, 1999) Like the church declaring that the earth was the center of the universe - in the future those who would dare discuss any racial differences would just be executed as heretics. That future is fast approaching.
Of course, like any church orthodoxy, the high priests can get exemptions. "Or, to take another issue, the efforts of Arab nations to have the United Nations declare Zionism a form of racism provoked an extremely hostile reaction in nations friendly to Israel, particularly the United States, but it led to virtually no discussion of whether Zionism is a form of racism. Yet the charge is not altogether without plausibility, for if Jews are a race, then Zionism promotes the idea of a state dominated by one race, and this has practical consequences in, for instance, Israel's immigration laws. Again, to consider whether this makes Zionism a form of racism we need to understand what it is that makes a policy racist and wrong." (Peter Singer in Baird, 1999) Dogma always leads to hypocrisy.
This dogma is embraced even by the most hardened empiricists, like Edward O. Wilson: "The empiricist view concedes that moral codes are devised to conform to some drives of human nature and to suppress others. Ought is not the translation of human nature but of the public will, which can be made increasingly wise and stable through the understanding of the needs and pitfalls of human nature. It recognizes that the strength of commitment can wane as a result of new knowledge and experience, with the result that certain rules may be desacralized, old laws rescinded, and behavior that was once prohibited freed. It also recognizes that for the same reason new moral codes may need to be devised, with the potential in time of being made sacred." (Wilson in Baird, 1999)
This is a truly frightening admission that totalitarianism may have to be implemented, for how else would one counteract knowledge? Wilson's writings are riddled with these contradictions, and yet he does not see the dangers of trying to suppress human nature with new moralizing gods. If we understand human nature, why not use it to implement laws and institutions that will strive for fairness in the applications of laws - not hide our laws under the shadow of tyranny?
Absent from formulations for a perfect world, both on the Left and on the Right, is a recognition that maybe, rather than trying to dictate what each side sees as the best political system for everyone, we encourage independence and experimentation by advocating the freedom of sovereign nations. That is, set as a goal non-belligerent nationalism. Like sports, every nation can compete with every other nation, respecting primarily each other's boundaries without threat or intimidation. We can then learn from each other and share our data on policy implementations - the best systems will be copied without coercion.
Moralizing gods like antiracism are the same as religious gods; they are born more out of hatred than for any benevolent concern for people. "It would not require any overemphasis of the facts to argue that even religious organizations and religious creeds have been developed more from dislike of the opposing belief, of the men who hold them, or of their practices, religious or personal, than from any consuming belief in the doctrine that was accepted." (Pillsbury, 1919)
Hate is the natural response then when threats or injuries are anticipated. So how are we to build nations or diverse cultures within nations without hate, when hate is the glue that holds groups together? "The utility of combinations through hate and the vigorous common action induced by it are obvious from the evolutionary considerations. Societies are primarily means of defense against outside agencies. They apparently survive as units in the original savage state and both the organizations and the hates are an expression of the needs of survival. If hate, then, is an instinctive response against an injury or a threatened injury, cooperation of the individuals subject to injury is an effective if not an essential agent in common defense." (Pillsbury, 1919) To me, the most parsimonious answer is simply to divide the world into nation-states that are racially homogenous. Without the acrimony of race, the nation can then solve the problems of income disparity, welfare, medical care, employment, etc. When race is introduced, our innate nepotism kicks in, as it was meant to do. It cannot be legislated away.
As van den Berghe explains, "I suggest that there now exists a theoretical paradigm of great scope and explanatory power - evolutionary biology - that sheds a new light on phenomena of ethnocentrism and racism. In so doing, I am fully cognizant of the protest that such an endeavor will elicit. My basic argument is quite simple: ethnic and racial sentiments are extensions of kinship sentiments. Ethnocentrism and racism are thus extended forms of nepotism - the propensity to favor kin over nonkin. There exists a general behavioral predisposition, in our species as in many others, to react favorably toward other organisms to the extent that these organisms are biologically related to the actor. The closer the relationship is, the stronger the preferential behavior." (Pierre L. van den Berghe in Baird, 1999)
For this very reason, any program of antiracism is doomed to failure because the advocacy groups are utilizing "adaptive strategies" that are good for them and their kin, and are indifferent to finding any truth by implementing empirical data gathering. (Goldberg, 2001) In fact, they must suppress scientific methodologies, through the use of hate laws or intimidation, in order to control by indoctrination the subjugation of everything that is Western, through guilt.
Using Ockham's Razor, or the principal of parsimony, science proceeds by comparing competing theories, and the simplest theories that rely on what is already known is more likely to be true. (Giovannali, 1999) Because of this, over the last 20 years or so, those who do research on genetic differences, the degree of heritability of behavioral traits and intelligence, and differences between races, have been winning every battle. The radical environmentalists have all but thrown up flags of surrender within the climate of scientific empiricism, making it necessary now to suppress science itself. Antiracism is now a reigning ideology because it could not compete on scientific grounds with the ideology of racial differences. Now, science itself must be suppressed, but like any changing ideology, it is being advanced in steps.
After the Second World War, the reigning ideology was just finishing its swing from racialism to antiracism, fundamentally because Germany lost the war and was universally condemned, while Communist atrocities were hidden away from view behind the Iron Curtain. The Marxists had won the ideological and the scientific battle for radical environmentalism - or so they thought:
"The same forces that prompted Canada to introduce hate literature statutes after World War II affected other countries as well and led to such international proposals as Article 20 of the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.' It reads: '1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.'"
The world was sure that science had somehow proven that racism and eugenics were together, proven false. Marxism had triumphed - at least if not in world domination - in the assumption that humans could be molded by culture without our genes having any input. But as science progressed, the pendulum was starting to swing back towards another view of human nature, a view that some ideologues did not like and needed to prevent at any cost. Race was to be denied, because race was an important means for mobilizing some groups against others. However, to admit a racial or kinship strategy would bring back dangers of once again being on the defensive about assimilation and national loyalty. "Much of the formulating, writing, and lobbying for hate crime legislation has been carried out by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, which has been tracking anti-Semitism for many years. Its model hate crime statutes have served as a basis for many states' legislation." (Kelly, 1998)
The problem with hate crime legislation is that it primarily impacts individuals who react violently in the heat of the moment, and does not really impact overall public attitudes, besides driving the races apart. "In my opinion, the current wave of hate crime legislation is more reflective of greater intolerance to discrimination, negative stereotyping, and hate mongering than it is to higher and more severe levels of racial, religious, and homophobic violence. We have a movement to hate crime legislation because our sensitivity to, and distaste for, group prejudice and hatred have sharply increased, rather than because we are being drowned in a tidal wave of hate crime." (Kelly, 1998) In addition, hate crime may actually be adverse for the very minorities it was meant to protect: "While intraracial crime far exceeds interracial crime, statistics at least for the United States as a whole show that with respect to interracial crimes, whites are more likely to be the victims of blacks and other minorities than they are to be the perpetrators of crimes against these groups. While some law review writers have advocated that hate crimes should only encompass harms perpetrated by whites against members of minorities, all state hate crime statutes include offenses perpetrated by minority group members against members of majority as well as against other minority groups." (Kelly, 1998) It is evident, that hate crime laws, while using isolated cases for advancing an egalitarian agenda, does little to stop individuals from lashing out at others that they hate in a moment of passion. The real intent is to slowly put into place a system of laws and restrictions where any scientific investigation into racial differences can be suppressed, just like many Western nations have laws against Holocaust revisionism.
The problem is, at least in the United States, our constitution has provided a firm guarantee of freedom of speech when it involves matters of public concern or policy. Still, for many of the new priestly caste, it is never too soon to start challenging this freedom. It has been taken away almost everywhere else in the world, it can be overturned here as well - just like the right to own and bear arms is relentlessly challenged.
Group rights, especially when these groups are attacking Euro-Americans, has been a very effective group evolutionary strategy so far. "I am pessimistic enough to fear that the attacks by the advocates of Political Correctness on the First Amendment, specifically their attempts to ban 'offensive' speech and to make groups the primary bearers of rights, may succeed. Hence, those, and those alone, are the only aspects of Political Correctness I am concerned with…. There are many signs that both philosophers and lawyers are finding in 'communitarian' theory a philosophical basis for group libel legislation. An examination of recent articles in several law reviews suggests that the First Amendment is no longer even in the abstract seen as a 'good thing.' On the contrary, the First Amendment is seen as the legal vehicle that justifies racist speech. It is the most serious barrier to the successful introduction of legislation that would prevent the harms that racial slurs produce. These harms are perceived to be so hurtful, so damaging to members of certain communities, so self-evidently immoral, that draconian legislation is required. Some proposals are phrased so sweepingly that even talking about racism in class would constitute a violation." (Bracken, 1994) In the end, they want to be able to purge any mention that maybe, just maybe, economic disparities exist between groups not because of racism, but because races differ genetically. If that becomes common knowledge, then the egalitarian/socialist agenda is doomed.
Most hate crimes "bubble to the surface during ad hoc conflicts." (Jacobs, 2001) But the real danger is in using hate crimes as a pretense for indoctrination - especially of young children. "Suppose that a highly politicized criminal justice system picked up juveniles and low-level offenders for all sorts of crimes that are usually not punished, or punished only lightly, and used the arrest as a hook to force the offender into programs to correct their thinking - that is, persuade them to adopt the 'right position' on gay marriage, affirmative action, and multicultural history curricula." (Jacobs, 2001) And you can be assured that when the indoctrinators teach tolerance, they will also be teaching miscegenation. Throughout the Left's material on antiracism, the fact that some groups do not like to marry other groups, is held up as proof of rampant racism.
Now that we are unraveling the secrets of human nature, we need to decide - how are we going to use what we are learning to form new movements, mobilize people, and taking control of our own destinies? I contend that rational arguments alone are rather meaningless, and that mobilization must include hate, fear and disgust to be effective. If we had our hands on all aspects of the media, our job would be easy - we would just indoctrinate our people to become racially aware of the dangers that lie ahead. Not having control of the media means therefore, that we need not only our own organizational commitments, but some good luck as well, like a war in the Middle East.
On the web, we see many discussions about alliances, especially between White racialists, Islamists, and the Left (and now the neoconservative Right). It my opinion, Whites should stand aside and let the factions fight it out - not only to weaken the Left, but also to radicalize Whites. Bringing into question the value of multiculturalism, diversity, open immigration, and the ultimate question "aren't they just like us" will need to be answered - and the answer from behavior genetics is NO! They are different from us in many ways - both culturally and genetically, and we are incapable of living together in harmony. Humans, via cultural, ecological and historical differences, have developed different behavioral traits by race. "Animal breeders have long known that it takes only a few generations of mating among carefully selected individuals to begin influencing behavioral traits of their offspring, such as how tame or fierce a given line of dogs is. When breeders try to customize behavior in this fashion, they in fact are often working with the synaptic organization of the brain. A few extra connections here, a little more or a little less neurotransmitter there, and animals begin to act differently. Once we realize that the basic wiring plan of the brain is under genetic influence, it's easy to see how not only animals but also people can have very similar brains and yet be so different, right from the start of their lives." (LeDoux, 2002)
What we need then on the right is the re-racialization of a secular theology, similar to what has been promoted by the Left - but without their negation of empiricism. "The traditional social dominance of emotion-based theologies [like Christianity] appears to be undergoing a challenge. Whether it is for the better is not yet clear. Emotion-based social engineers in politics and various social movements are competing with established religions for control in determining social beliefs and values. In general, religions are motivated by the need for self-preservation and their historical desire to control the anxieties and baser urges of mankind through emotion-based myth. Some social engineers appear to be using pseudo-psychology to support an egalitarian or cultural relativist belief that equal outcome is more desirable than equal opportunity, and that self-esteem and not self-discipline will achieve the ultimate good." (Giovannali, 1999)
MacDonald's trilogy on group evolutionary strategies is the clearest roadmap we have for creating a new nation based on a workable political system that is aware of racial conflicts. He states quite clearly: "it would appear that a liberal economic culture cannot develop in a society wracked by ethnic conflict. From an evolutionary perspective this is because evolved psychological mechanisms of between-group conflict result in people viewing their situations in terms of their group status. It is not far fetched to fear the re-emergence of illiberal economic policies as ethnic competition escalates in contemporary Western multi-cultural societies. Affirmative action policies are definitely a step in that direction." (MacDonald, 2002b)
He then lays out why we can create many alternative types of group strategies, keeping one eye on our goals and the other on the opponents as they change strategies: "This conclusion highlights an important theoretical point about group evolutionary strategies. There is no theoretical reason to suppose that there will be 'laws of group evolutionary strategies' to be gleaned by examining a number of them and comparing them. My view is that the nature of these groups is theoretically underdetermined because humans, using domain general mechanisms, are able to invent different ways of group living. Unlike animals, our social structures are not rigidly programmed by our genes. There are a whole lot of group strategies with a variety of similarities and differences, and there are a great many humans who don't have much allegiance to groups. I do argue that people who are deeply involved in highly cohesive, ethnocentric groups are (quantitatively) different psychologically from the rest of us on the dimension of individualism/collectivism - a psychological measure related to ethnocentrism. And the discussion here suggests that pre-existing differences in psychological traits, such as IQ differences, affect the types of strategies that it would be viable for a group to develop." (MacDonald, 2002b)
Realizing then that Whites are vulnerable to deracialization by guilt and shame through indoctrination - first by other more xenophobic races, and then by our own hyper-moralistic kin - our strategies have to be tailored to take this individualism into account. From my perspective, I believe that Whites therefore have to be made aware of how they are manipulated and or duped, how they have been made to feel guilty via intense indoctrination, and how they can free themselves of that guilt and begin the reformulation of what will constitute a new culture based on our needs, and not the needs of our enemies. That is, we must use our intellect along with our emotions, to overcome our innate vulnerabilities.
Wachterhauser writes, "This emphasis on the role of historically informed prejudices in understanding is also essential to Gadamer's critique of 'method' in the human sciences. Gadamer's rejection of 'method' is not a rejection of the need for rigor, discipline, or painstaking care in our intellectual endeavors. Rather it is a rejection of the Cartesian ideal, which our culture has been pursuing for over 300 years now, that there is some explicit and universal procedure which will enable us to settle all of our significant disputes and disagreements once and for all." (Brice Wachterhauser in Baird, 1999) So be it for rational debate when it comes to group conflict - we must proceed on the basis that conflict is to be expected, and that only a reduction in individual differences and racial group differences can reduce this conflict. Some would like us all to interbreed, to dumb down the masses, the browning of the world's six billion people in order to bring about peace between races. I find it far easier to envision simple separation between the races to bring this about - either in gated communities, new homelands or carve out a new nation by any means available.
Understanding the emotional mechanisms of hate, fear and disgust, to mobilize collective action, has lead me to conclude:
The elite in any country will not take a racial stance. With a few exceptions, they will turn against their race when it is advantageous and adopt narrow nepotism. Amy Chua, in World on Fire, elaborates this tendency, as does Kevin MacDonald in his trilogy on group evolutionary strategies. Simply stated, races will stick together in defense of their positions, until wealth and power makes coalition building unnecessary. The elite therefore, as they obtain resources far in excess of what is needed to feel threatened by any other group, goes its own way - they usually bail on their racial kin. Racialists then must never rely on their elite to lead them, but rather always expect them to betray their own kind. We should show more hatred and disgust towards Bill Gates than towards Jesse Jackson.
Promoting the understanding that there are differences in average intelligence between races does two things. First, it causes fear of those who are more intelligent than us on average. Second it causes hate and disgust towards those of lesser intelligence for wanting what they do not deserve.
We must make people aware that other nations do not tolerate other foreign races in their midst. Except for Western nations, other nations are extremely tribal and intolerant of outsiders - we have been duped into showing compassion for other races that would never reciprocate our benevolence or sense of fairness.
Hatred and disgust can well up in people who feel that they have been duped. We must be willing to hold our own leaders accountable for their complicity in spreading the guilt of racism onto our people, including the churches, non-governmental organizations, academics, media and the government.
Behavior genetics needs to be discussed more openly, and the principles of racial differences made clear. Like intelligence, once we understand that we are easily indoctrinated and racially more tolerant than competing races, we can use our intellects to try to overcome our innate weakness. Along with this, evolution does not reward morality unless it is tied to advancing our own genes - and that means morality only for race and kin.
Every person is responsible for the violence perpetrated against their own kind when they do not stand against integration, immigration, and tolerance towards criminals. We must collectively fear the criminal races around us.
Living in a democracy makes every individual equally responsible for the collective actions of the state. If a new kind of war breaks out, where assassinations, partisan terrorism, or biological or chemical weapons are used, it is disingenuous to claim that this form of asymmetrical warfare is unjust. War is never just - it is about winning. Wars are made possible because the people are indoctrinated to hate and fear the enemy - and the elite always determines who the enemy is to be.
To compete, we must breed a brighter race, one that will surpass the Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians, or any other racial group that comes forth. Only then will we be able to assure our dominance and safety - only then can we eliminate hate, fear and disgust within our culture.
Nuenke, June 2003
- Astro Physics
- Eco System
- Gene Therapy
- Genetic Engineering
- Genetic Medicine
- Health Care
- Human Genetics
- Medical School
- Mind Upload
- Molecular Medicine
- Moore's Law
- Nano Engineering
- Nano Medicine
- Red heads
- Space Flight