A practical question is how should this subsection of society meet in person? The dissident right isn’t known for socially networking. Any informative answer would be appreciated as community building is vital.
Agree, unfortunately. Right wingers are too rebellious and self-centered in general. Getting into silly disagreements over details. Lefties are much better at creating a Fascist hierarcy and organizing the herds.
The few women also seem to be rather self-centered and looking for validation just like other women. Just found their little niche for special ego-boosting.
Has its merits, but also issues. Anyway, support it - it's all we got so far. Unfortunately mainly seems to have users from the US and A. And don't even seem that interested in promoting the site ("keeping under the radar" - which is rather silly idea). Still could be promoted much more in right-wing networks, if someone had the time?
The problem with "white flight" is that anywhere you go, the rest of the world soon wants to follow. I appreciate the idea of future Byzantia to shield the vestiges of our falling civilization. But Byzantium had its famous walls. What will be the walls to keep our Byzantium from being overrun?
I spent four years of my youth teaching secondary school in two sub-Saharan secondary schools. Both locations were very rural. My experience of these places, living close up to the daily realities, is that the living is by no means easy in these latitudes. Seven months of the year is generally bone dry, and windy with it. When the rains do come people are out digging and ploughing like the dickens. If I took you on a tour of N Nigeria in January and August you would get two utterly different impressions. So the 'easy environment' element of your approach to IQ etc does not ring true. To me Ireland in the winter is a much softer environment than the Sahel during Harmattan. And see all the smart cuties we've got !!
Seems to me that a critical question is, are there strategies by which the sub-Saharan inhabitants can increase their prosperity and fertility during the droughts? As I understand the theory of adaptation, the environment needs to be stressful enough to make innovation rewarding, but not so stressful that conformity and group consciousness takes precedence over all else.
They are not droughts. They are totally routine annual dry seasons, seven months of every year. There has been innovation. Hand phones for sms banking, motorcycles, motor mills for corn, industrial fertiliser, electric light, modern medicine and many more adoptions in the last 50 years. Bore wells, berm dams, ...............
By "innovations" I mean techniques developed by the people themselves, which would emphasize intelligence. Unless there is a selection based on who can use the technology you mentioned, there is no Darwinian pressure encouraging the development of intelligence or skills. The reason IQ is generally higher in northern, colder climates is that being able to develop and use survival techniques selects for the intelligent and social consciousness.
I would suggest that a Nigerian rural kid, whose parents have adopted cheap and available means of limiting meningitis and malaria in the child, will be much more successful in IQ, education and life in general. Ditto for other innovations. Viz who originates these technologies: I really don't think megalithic Europeans innovated all that much. New neolithic tech and social organisation seeped in over millennia. The adaptive process in Africa has only been 'on' for a short time by comparison. Also, I tend to think of the Africa that was not settled or colonised by Europeans. Africa, undistorted, is in the interior.
"By 1985–7, the Laestadian and Finnish TFRs stood at 5.47 and 1.45 respectively. Even within the Laestadian TFR of 5.47, there is diversity, with a 'moderate' group preferring to stop at four [children] and practise birth control while a conservative cluster engages in unrestrained reproduction.
Also as someone who translates Japanese for a living, your comment about possible exile in Northeast Asia was incredibly heartening, lol. I'm actually considering penning a book titled 「アメリカ化：一人のアメリカ人からの警告」.
I seem to remember some sociological studies showing there is some benefit for a small group of outsiders. However, there is a tipping point where a higher density of outsiders triggers hostility and group conflict. Do you know there is a small community of Iranian Jews living in Iran, under very good circumstances, protected and coddled by the Iranian government?
I am wondering about historical precedents for DEI. Obviously there are echoes of loyalty tests and partisanship during Bolshevik and communist times. But is there anything earlier, before 1800? The French Revolution maybe? Anything earlier even. I am looking for ways to think about how this is all going to play out. Thanks Ed! Great work. Been a fan for a couple of years now.
Thanks Ed, enjoyed these Q and As very much. Never heard of Atavism, will have a read-up. I am an Englishman like you hence "ours". Same neck of the woods I believe. Thought the name would give it away but never mind. Hope you do the Q and As again. Enjoying the Substack too.
Hi Ed, long time drinker at the JH, glad to see the boost in production quality.
Do try to get Peter Hitchens on, I think having the pair of you chat on both religion and the sexual revolution would be very interesting.
Here's my question: Natural selection is clearly a scientific fact, but I have not been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that all living organisms today came about solely through "random mutation" from a common ancestor. From what I have read, there isn't any concrete evidence that this is the case. Could you convince me otherwise?
Do have a look at this, I'd appreciate if you try to poke holes in the argument presented here: https://youtu.be/NetQrus79aM
Also, when are you gonna be in London for an IRL meetup?
I recall a biologist author saying the random mutation-Darwinian selection paradigm was quite predictive for intra-species change, but could not be definitively modeled for inter-species change. In other words, the random mutation model works for changes in Finch beaks, but works less well (so far) for the transition from amoeba to Finch or Finch to human.
In the absence of a viable model, I guess the explanation "and God waved his hand and created the species" is as good as any other. However, if you're acting as a scientist, even a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution, you have the responsibility of showing that, in fact, all explanations we can come up with are not viable. Now, of course, you can't absolutely prove a negative, but as long as you can show that all present known paths of change are unable to explain inter-species development, the God hypothesis is still viable.
I share your position. In my teenage years I was sucked in to the whole "Four Horsemen" thing (Dawkins et. al.), and as a consequence I strongly believed in Darwinism and never questioned it. Its simplicity and elegance immediately made me favour it as an explanation as to how we came about over other more elaborate theories.
In the video I attached, the chap (not to appeal to woke-joke authority, but it's worth mentioning, is an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who I've personally met) goes on about the fact that fossil evidence supports that most species came about in "waves of creation" rather than gradually. Steven Jay Gould squares this with the Darwinian view by introducing the notion of punctuated equilibrium. This already starts to complicate the theory and its elegance in my eyes started to rub off.
I'd love for Ed to have the guy on and chat with him, or simply take on these points.
Thank you for your response. I apologise for not being clearer with my question. I was asking that instead of taking the usual emotional reaction to beauty (''they're hot!'' etc) is there a scientific/logic based justification for valuing beautiful people and if so what? (i.e. do beautiful people objectively have good genes? etc).
In fact, Ed Dutton has a book on ethnocentrism and race. Ethnocentrism is another word for tribalism. In fact, whites are the least tribal of the races, pretty much destroying themselves by allowing in much more ethnocentric minorities. Ed has a recent video, I believe on the Revolution in France detailing his ideas on the relationship between Darwinian stress and ethnocentrism.
Specifically, what do you mean? Are you saying the whole concept of İQ is an 'extreme idea' or that the idea that low İQ contributes to violent behaviour is an extreme idea? By what metric are you applying the adjective 'extreme'? Do you have an extrme-o-meter?
Can I politely suggest you put a link to your odyssey live stream on Substack? Twitter won't let me look at tweets any longer.
A practical question is how should this subsection of society meet in person? The dissident right isn’t known for socially networking. Any informative answer would be appreciated as community building is vital.
Agree, unfortunately. Right wingers are too rebellious and self-centered in general. Getting into silly disagreements over details. Lefties are much better at creating a Fascist hierarcy and organizing the herds.
The few women also seem to be rather self-centered and looking for validation just like other women. Just found their little niche for special ego-boosting.
Was loooking a bit at this site>: https://www.whitedate.net/
Has its merits, but also issues. Anyway, support it - it's all we got so far. Unfortunately mainly seems to have users from the US and A. And don't even seem that interested in promoting the site ("keeping under the radar" - which is rather silly idea). Still could be promoted much more in right-wing networks, if someone had the time?
Thank you, much appreciated. Hopefully this yields results for spirited conversation and potential social networking.
The problem with "white flight" is that anywhere you go, the rest of the world soon wants to follow. I appreciate the idea of future Byzantia to shield the vestiges of our falling civilization. But Byzantium had its famous walls. What will be the walls to keep our Byzantium from being overrun?
I spent four years of my youth teaching secondary school in two sub-Saharan secondary schools. Both locations were very rural. My experience of these places, living close up to the daily realities, is that the living is by no means easy in these latitudes. Seven months of the year is generally bone dry, and windy with it. When the rains do come people are out digging and ploughing like the dickens. If I took you on a tour of N Nigeria in January and August you would get two utterly different impressions. So the 'easy environment' element of your approach to IQ etc does not ring true. To me Ireland in the winter is a much softer environment than the Sahel during Harmattan. And see all the smart cuties we've got !!
Seems to me that a critical question is, are there strategies by which the sub-Saharan inhabitants can increase their prosperity and fertility during the droughts? As I understand the theory of adaptation, the environment needs to be stressful enough to make innovation rewarding, but not so stressful that conformity and group consciousness takes precedence over all else.
They are not droughts. They are totally routine annual dry seasons, seven months of every year. There has been innovation. Hand phones for sms banking, motorcycles, motor mills for corn, industrial fertiliser, electric light, modern medicine and many more adoptions in the last 50 years. Bore wells, berm dams, ...............
By "innovations" I mean techniques developed by the people themselves, which would emphasize intelligence. Unless there is a selection based on who can use the technology you mentioned, there is no Darwinian pressure encouraging the development of intelligence or skills. The reason IQ is generally higher in northern, colder climates is that being able to develop and use survival techniques selects for the intelligent and social consciousness.
I would suggest that a Nigerian rural kid, whose parents have adopted cheap and available means of limiting meningitis and malaria in the child, will be much more successful in IQ, education and life in general. Ditto for other innovations. Viz who originates these technologies: I really don't think megalithic Europeans innovated all that much. New neolithic tech and social organisation seeped in over millennia. The adaptive process in Africa has only been 'on' for a short time by comparison. Also, I tend to think of the Africa that was not settled or colonised by Europeans. Africa, undistorted, is in the interior.
The Ayrabb for alfalfa is BURSEEM.
I will donate 100 EUR if you do an interview with Varg Vikernes while racing around in the Massif Central in his 4x4 flecktarn Niva.
No need to mention Negrobutcher...
Good day, good day, good day!
A couple of Qs for next Q & A:
- Ed: How much to find me a good traditional wife to have a large traditional family? No mulattos, svp.
- What do you think of this group? They seem to hang out a lot in Oulo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestadianism#Demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestadianism#Fertility:
"Unrestrained reproduction"...
"By 1985–7, the Laestadian and Finnish TFRs stood at 5.47 and 1.45 respectively. Even within the Laestadian TFR of 5.47, there is diversity, with a 'moderate' group preferring to stop at four [children] and practise birth control while a conservative cluster engages in unrestrained reproduction.
Great answers for my questions, thanks very much.
Also as someone who translates Japanese for a living, your comment about possible exile in Northeast Asia was incredibly heartening, lol. I'm actually considering penning a book titled 「アメリカ化：一人のアメリカ人からの警告」.
I seem to remember some sociological studies showing there is some benefit for a small group of outsiders. However, there is a tipping point where a higher density of outsiders triggers hostility and group conflict. Do you know there is a small community of Iranian Jews living in Iran, under very good circumstances, protected and coddled by the Iranian government?
I am wondering about historical precedents for DEI. Obviously there are echoes of loyalty tests and partisanship during Bolshevik and communist times. But is there anything earlier, before 1800? The French Revolution maybe? Anything earlier even. I am looking for ways to think about how this is all going to play out. Thanks Ed! Great work. Been a fan for a couple of years now.
Thanks Ed, enjoyed these Q and As very much. Never heard of Atavism, will have a read-up. I am an Englishman like you hence "ours". Same neck of the woods I believe. Thought the name would give it away but never mind. Hope you do the Q and As again. Enjoying the Substack too.
Jolly good. Glad it was of interest.
You didn't answer my questions! 😢
I did if I saw them. What were they?
Basically this:
Hi Ed, long time drinker at the JH, glad to see the boost in production quality.
Do try to get Peter Hitchens on, I think having the pair of you chat on both religion and the sexual revolution would be very interesting.
Here's my question: Natural selection is clearly a scientific fact, but I have not been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that all living organisms today came about solely through "random mutation" from a common ancestor. From what I have read, there isn't any concrete evidence that this is the case. Could you convince me otherwise?
Do have a look at this, I'd appreciate if you try to poke holes in the argument presented here: https://youtu.be/NetQrus79aM
Also, when are you gonna be in London for an IRL meetup?
I recall a biologist author saying the random mutation-Darwinian selection paradigm was quite predictive for intra-species change, but could not be definitively modeled for inter-species change. In other words, the random mutation model works for changes in Finch beaks, but works less well (so far) for the transition from amoeba to Finch or Finch to human.
In the absence of a viable model, I guess the explanation "and God waved his hand and created the species" is as good as any other. However, if you're acting as a scientist, even a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution, you have the responsibility of showing that, in fact, all explanations we can come up with are not viable. Now, of course, you can't absolutely prove a negative, but as long as you can show that all present known paths of change are unable to explain inter-species development, the God hypothesis is still viable.
I share your position. In my teenage years I was sucked in to the whole "Four Horsemen" thing (Dawkins et. al.), and as a consequence I strongly believed in Darwinism and never questioned it. Its simplicity and elegance immediately made me favour it as an explanation as to how we came about over other more elaborate theories.
In the video I attached, the chap (not to appeal to woke-joke authority, but it's worth mentioning, is an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who I've personally met) goes on about the fact that fossil evidence supports that most species came about in "waves of creation" rather than gradually. Steven Jay Gould squares this with the Darwinian view by introducing the notion of punctuated equilibrium. This already starts to complicate the theory and its elegance in my eyes started to rub off.
I'd love for Ed to have the guy on and chat with him, or simply take on these points.
Didn't answer my question 😕
I did if I saw them at the time of doing of video. What were they?
What effects on the rise and fall of civilisation would you anticipate if biological aging was dramatically slowed and ultimately ceased?
Thank you for your response. I apologise for not being clearer with my question. I was asking that instead of taking the usual emotional reaction to beauty (''they're hot!'' etc) is there a scientific/logic based justification for valuing beautiful people and if so what? (i.e. do beautiful people objectively have good genes? etc).
In fact, Ed Dutton has a book on ethnocentrism and race. Ethnocentrism is another word for tribalism. In fact, whites are the least tribal of the races, pretty much destroying themselves by allowing in much more ethnocentric minorities. Ed has a recent video, I believe on the Revolution in France detailing his ideas on the relationship between Darwinian stress and ethnocentrism.
I'm having difficulty pinning down your exact meaning, do you mean IQ is an extreme idea?
Specifically, what do you mean? Are you saying the whole concept of İQ is an 'extreme idea' or that the idea that low İQ contributes to violent behaviour is an extreme idea? By what metric are you applying the adjective 'extreme'? Do you have an extrme-o-meter?