When you ask a Left winger about White Genocide [phone interview]

I was pondering what I posed earlier. Along the lines of Left opinion and SJW distortion, speculating on their personal motives and something I said, “The suppression of European prosperity is white genocide.” Although I believe it to be true, I thought it was unfair to argue this without a right of reply, as it were.

It occurred to me, ask one! Perhaps nobody has done this from lack of the personal contacts to make it happen, instead of willing, the selection of both parties and agreement to get along alone would be difficult, so I called up a lefty acquaintance who self-describes as ‘moderately Left’ (I can agree with this) and ‘not an SJW per se’ but with “social justice sympathies”, whatever that means.

Here is the transcription. This person is usually quite well balanced and reasonable, as in they have stated reasons for most of what they think, unlike many SJWs, to be fair. We dove right in.

DS: Are white people dying out?
Leftist: …Yes.
You … you acknowledge that.
Yes, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing.
Are you victim blaming?
No, white people aren’t victims.
But they’re dying out and a global minority.
Maybe they deserve to be.
Wow, they deserved it? Really? [lol] Argument from white guilt? What if white people went extinct?
So what?
You’re advocating genocide….
Whites aren’t a people.
You’re white.
It’s a social construct.
Social constructs aren’t alive, you can’t test its DNA. If you accept the existence of every other race, at least you must accept White as an umbrella term for non-POC.
Yes, an umbrella term, but not actually real.
Actually real?
Yes, they are a category, but they aren’t actually real, like race itself.
Are black people real?
Yes, but the idea of ‘blackness’ is a social construct.
Is their melanin pigment a social construct?
That’s racist.
That’s biology. Let’s change the subject. What about the Christian genocide ongoing in MENA.
That’s a myth.
Hillary Clinton called it genocide.
Christians aren’t a race.
Neither is Islam.
That’s racist.
What do you mean by use of that word?
You treat non-whites differently.
No I am not, I’m applying the exact same logical criteria and coming up with a contradiction. And if non-whites exist, by definition that must be in equally valid opposition to the equally real opponents of White descent. If Q, then P.
[noise] You’re twisting my words.
How?
You’re saying things I didn’t say, it’s a strawman.
You don’t know how debate works, do you? Calling a fallacy doesn’t make it true. If I built a strawman, you could refute it quite easily, yet you haven’t. So I haven’t.
It’s a strawman.
Based on what, you said that already.
Based on what you did.
Do you even know how a strawman is built?
You’re making it up.
Explain.
Explain how you’re lying?
I’m not lying, I was asking and answering your questions. It would be nice if you took this seriously.
This topic is stupid, as are you to give it a platform. It doesn’t merit discussion.
The idea of a race dying isn’t silly or trivial. It’s genocide, [micropause]..it’s evil.
Evil? Pssh. White people are over-reacting. The future belongs to POC.
You’re… you’re enjoying this.
Hey, I’m being practical. If we don’t have enough children, we deserve to be replaced.
So you acknowledge race replacement is ongoing.
I didn’t say that.
Literally did.
You’re literally fearmongering.
You accepted the premise that statistically, the future is brown.
You can’t say that.
What?
Brown. It’s racist to refer to them by their colour.
Like white people? And black people?
Those aren’t the same.
I know they aren’t, but you treat them differently. You see one as less than human and the other as valid.
What do you mean, less than human?
You think every other race has a right to live and a right to self-determination and legal protection – except Whites. It is dehumanizing.
What is ‘a White’?
Someone of European ethnic descent.
And?
And it can be tested for.
Those tests are unreliable.
Yet when a Democrat says she’s a 16th Cherokee, you believe it.
It’s controversial.
You’re being evasive.
You’re being hysterical.
About genocide? Yeah. Yeah that is a valid topic to get upset about. I’m quite disturbed by how happy the idea makes you.
I, what did you say earlier, I refute that it IS genocide.
It meets the UN criteria I showed you.
In your opinion.
No, literally. Statistically.
And what am I supposed to do about it?
Call it wrong.
Is it?
Yes!
I don’t see anything to be scared of. We’ll be long gone.
Maybe, maybe not. It’s the principle of a race dying out, contrary to diversity. Diversity dogma states that every group requires support, you admitted white people are a category, a social group.
White people aren’t very nice.
There are no exceptions to human rights.
But white lives come at the expense of, as you say, brown.
No they don’t, everyone has their homeland.
Native Americans don’t.
Exactly my point.
Exactly mine.
You don’t follow.
This discussion is pointless.
I agree. Can I get clarification on one point? It’s about cognitive dissonance.
Okay…
Rwandan genocide. Armenian genocide. Native American genocide. All wrong?
Yes, absolutely. Uhuh… [spoken like duh]
White genocide, right?
That’s a loaded question. White genocide, not a problem.
I think we’re done here.
Me too.

I TRIED.

From what I can gather, now I’ve cleared my head, they appear to view it in two cognitive modes.

  1. inevitable – if so, why worry?
  2. preventable – if so, racist

I’m glad I did this actually, we have uncovered that the epithet ‘racist’ is synonymous with ‘heathen’ in religion. It connotes innate evil and outgrouping and one should prefer to die than be labelled such.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=565

‘Racist’ functions as crimestop, and a thought-terminating cliche in the mind of the speaker. It is intended to be the bookend of discussion, putting a stop to anything controversial or novel.

In this case, a ‘good’ white person is expected to die on the altar of Liberalism, to sacrifice themselves and their kin (their race) to the ‘Greater Good’ of Brown People Happiness. Hypothetical happiness which fails to manifest in say, post-apartheid Africa.

their feelings > your life

Irrational. By any definition, an insane anti-life instinct.
Note: the ‘Appeal to Strawman’ so popular with atheistkult members. This man is an atheist. It is used as a false appeal to logical fallacy (itself a logical fallacy, as I reminded him) and practically, an excuse to dismiss the argument as having a lack of logical authority (also an appeal to authority, low authority).

I would’ve recorded him but I don’t want my voice up here and he’s quite a famous actor, you’d know his voice, since he’s famous for that. I got him to agree to transcript since we both detest undue publicity. Lord knows he got enough after an incident with a stewardess on a plane…

Link: Assortative mating and class

http://www.unz.com/jman/the-son-becomes-the-father/

Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).

What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.

The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.

Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.

The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.

It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.

This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.

Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).

This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.

The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.

…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….

The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.

Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure. 

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.

Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.

(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)

That needs to be made clear for the all  would-be sociologists.

But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.

Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?

The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.

If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.

OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.

This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).

One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.

He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.

That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).

The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.

Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.

But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.

Superman quotes now? Epic.

The Myth of ‘Hybrid Vigour’: Mixed Race/Beige People lies

This was intended to go in another drafted post but it ended up longer than the original draft topic. As a tangent this is worth detailed excavation. It operates on no logical, genetic, moral level.

Reminder: The most ‘mixed’ Europeans (with other Europeans) are pure as driven snow:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/genetics-white-americans-are-very-white/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/genetic-study-white-americans-are-98-6-european/

The Beige People are promoted, and there is much mainstream media extolling of their imagined virtues, contrary to… evidence.

Wrong on so many levels. First of all, blondes would be dead as the dodo. Her eyes would be dark brown. Look up the female fertility rate by nation, she’d be practically entirely black. Read some Mendel for how that would work out.

There are people who salivate over this prospect: ” “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” Sickeningly racist.
This also flies in the face of recent genetic evolution, that clearly shows a divergence: “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.” Further, “We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups.”
The myth of so-called hybrid vigour flies in the face of the most probable causes of desirable characteristics such as intelligence, for example low genetic load. Exactly what it sounds like. If you divide rocks between barrels, you’re still carrying rocks, the same load of rocks and this is why the latest developments in healthcare are refining treatments based on the common ailments of the patient’s demographic (race). Paying attention to this stuff is literally saving lives. 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61886-3/abstract
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38950/title/On-Race-and-Medicine/

Hybrid vigour has been given the PC name ‘heterosis’ but its origins lie in the racism of claiming slaves are hardier when bred like prize animals. It is quite literally Scientific Racism to claim we must breed out the evolved diversity of innate differences of humans as if we’re cattle. Most people have a confirmed tendency toward genophilia and prefer to date and reproduce within their own race, what if this majority refuse? As we all know from LGBT+ campaigning, who you are sexually attracted to (and not to) can never be a choice.
“We intend to create in Europe a mixed race of Asiatic and Negroid people” source

However, The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found Whites scored the highest at IQ106 and the mixed race IQ99, slightly below average. At best, the studies in this area have shown the mixed child averages between their parents, much like the inherited finding for height. The ‘magic dirt’ hypothesis of immigration is groundless and fell prey to the Sociologist’s Fallacy: “The evolutionary theory does however predict that when different races occupy approximately similar environments, such as for instance in the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, the intelligence differences will remain. This prediction has been examined in twenty three societies worldwide in Lynn (2008) and has been confirmed in every case.” – Lynn in 2010.


This bodes well for a global high IQ future.
Which leads to a healthy, growing economy.
There is no other way to do this but encourage WEIRD IQ levels.
Which are inherited.

The Flynn Effect has tailed off since nutrition has been resolved for children, the factor is finished and the formula/data tinkered with to follow its projections for publication (sounds familiar) but in all likelihood it is a demonstration of measurement error writ large, as modern supposedly more intelligent people struggle even with the language of previous generations, let alone their testing standards. This should not be possible [black swan/negative evidence]
Mixed studies are rarely done and beg the question – a mix of whom? A mixed children of European races, further subdivided into Northern/South territories could present IQ gains as the nations are high IQ, high technology societies already. A parent from these combined with a parent from a low IQ undeveloped nation could not. Furthermore, it is remiss to ignore the validity of genetic ties to native homeland, bound up in human rights. Globally, White people are a strict minority and such experimentation would clearly violate the UN conditions for genocide. Moreover, the recessive genomic nature of White traits, compared to and unlike all other races, mark it as unsuitable for such experiments intending to knowingly dominate and replace such natives with outgroup gene sequences, and would make it a form of institutional ethnic cleansing. Legally, these recessive races should deserve protections from such interference in much the same way as we protect endangered species. Or is a bird’s life worth more than that of a human? Reservations now or reservations later.
Altogether, mixed race children have poorer environmental outcomes (such as higher homicide rates) and it would be unethical to encourage this. One-drop theory refers to the dominance of certain racial sequences down the centuries, where unexpected baby skin coloration might arise for example. Considering Dawkin’s work, we do not truly own our genes to make this irresponsible choice, our responsibility as a carrier for them as meme will be to pass on as many of them as purely as possible into the future and this cannot be done by becoming the Mendelian cuckoldry party. Forensic anthropology have proven racial taxonomy goes down to the bone, whatever you call it. Ignoring the differences won’t stop Asia from researching them, it’s coming out eventually. You can be there or you can be on the wrong side of history. We can view these differences under a microscope, they are not imaginary. We have a duty to protect this natural diversity of Homo Sapiens into the future. Every race has a right to exist, live in their homeland and self-determine.
Hybrid vigour is a dangerous myth. There are strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages, within every single race and genetic diaspora. These are not a bad thing. They are natural. All of them. Evolution has formed them as adaptive. We cannot understand the full relevance of these varied profiles and we are ethically bound to leave them alone before meddling in the very blueprint of life.

Finally, we already know the genetic sweet spot for health when it comes to Inbreeding and Outbreeding. We would know this evolutionary boon by its natural super-fertility. 
It’s third-cousins that provide the perfect blend.

In a paper published today deCODE scientists establish a substantial and consistent positive correlation between the kinship of couples and the number of children and grandchildren they have. The study, which analyzes more than 200 years of deCODE’s comprehensive genalogical data on the population of Iceland, shows that couples related at the level of third cousins have the greatest number of offspring….

The findings hold for every 25-year interval studied, beginning with those born in the year 1800 up to the present day. Because of the strength and consistency of the association, even between couples with very subtle differences in kinship, the authors conclude that the effect very likely has a biological basis, one which has yet to be elucidated.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/dg-dlc020408.php
h/t: http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/darwinian-sweet-spot-3rd-cousin.html

Unless you can come up with stronger findings (you can’t) –

Stop lying.

Common sense connectome findings vs lifestyle

There is a myth in circulation that creative or intelligent people do more drugs. Usually the false connection is made on the personality trait of openness (which isn’t predictive, since drug use is a choice). It’s a medium correlation more likely from middle class boredom and rebellion.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/human-brain-connectome-results-2015-9

The researchers found that people with more traits the researchers classified as “positive,” like high IQ, tended to have a greater number of brain connections than people with more traits the researchers classified as “negative,” like high drug use.

Direct observation, and they’re loathe to offend anyone.
Like, the scans are right there. You can point to it.

But some say we should be cautious in how we interpret the findings.

I wonder if those people use…..

Read the damn data if you're so bloody educated

It’s like disputing the Type II diabetes and insulin connection.

The more “positive” traits people had, the more brain connections they found, and vice versa.

Eugenic epigenetics confirmed.

But the brain-wiring patterns linked to general intelligence were not the same as those for other kinds of intelligence, such as hand-eye coordination, some researchers noted. [DS: cerebellum, dude] This suggests maybe we should reconsider what IQ tests actually measure, especially since many scientists think it’s not the most useful measure of intelligence. [DS: those many scientists work in another, useless field]

*facepalming in the distance*
IQ is only relevant to an academic context. So very relevant (to practical application).
Gardner’s theories (multiple intelligences) have grounds, yes. Moving on.

Interestingly, people who had recently used marijuana tended to be on the more negative end of the brain connectivity spectrum, the researchers said.

NO SHIT award of the year.
First prize is a Sherlock pipe.

But the jury’s still out on how marijuana affects the brain.

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got
No.

…Scientists still debate exactly what this brain circuitry does, but previous research has linked it to several higher-level brain functions…..

And this is only the beginning of human connectome studies……

Hahaha the HBD people will be pleased.

The Human Connectome Project is now looking at genetic data from people in the study, including many pairs of identical and fraternal twins, to see how genetic and environmental influences are related to brain connectivity.

crying laughter lmao

We’re copying Asia and doing a eugenics study, but we aren’t calling it that? As if it makes a difference?

Meanwhile, other groups are studying the brain connections of aging adults and developing babies.

And they’ll find evidence of all the prejudices that withstood the test of time.
All the poor lifestyle choices, all the terrible parenting and the overall genetic load (inferiority) by demo.
cracking up dawn french

I cannot wait.
Redpill study of the century. 

Let’s see them deny it and become anti-science when the harm principle is clearly violated. Vigorously. Repeatedly. Down the generations, who have no choice. 

n.b. Not to denigrate men, but while they have larger brains on average, prior studies have shown women have better connected ones. Make of that what you will.

Link: The decline and Neanderthal DNA

http://vault-co.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/anyone-who-appears-to-be-able-to-reason.html

Thus far, the genetic studies have vindicated this position, to my knowledge.

http://www.livescience.com/7153-scientist-humans-strange-neanderthals-normal.html
There are a race of human: http://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html

But excavations and anatomical studies have shown Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelery, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and possibly sang or even spoke in much the same way that we do. Even more humbling, perhaps, their brains were slightly larger than ours.

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal’s humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

Video: Charles Murray on IQ, Race and Gender | The Bell Curve

Stefan seems to be on a one-man mission to redpill the internet. He’s been getting really redpill recently.

How the hell did he get the big CM on?

I love that guy. I love them both. I love that this is happening.

His fair argument about high IQ female fertility is somewhat echoed in: captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/08/how-socialism-makes-women-barren.html

Considering we all complain geniuses don’t have enough kids, I don’t think we can criticize those women smart enough to know “the future belongs to those who show up” by contributing multiple copies of their genius DNA into the future, some of which must be male and not constrained in the same way.

For most women, the best job in the world is motherhood:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/womens-role-in-the-workplace-and-history/

In few other avenues would we *generally* have the same control over the future (the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world) and raw ability to further the human horizons.
However, this doesn’t discount the rare few who should use their extreme outlier skills, if possible:

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/manosphere-fake-mgtow-claim-women-cant-do-science-or-women-cant-invent/

Usually, the woman’s best claim to fame in history is as “Mother to (VIP)”.
What a compliment that must be! Hey, you not only made life, you raised it better out of practically all other examples of your sex on the planet at the time. 

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw391.html

BLESSINGS on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world….

New human “species”: Homo naledi

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11855405/Homo-naledi-a-new-species-of-human-discovered-in-a-cave-in-South-Africa.html

They’re terrified of saying race. Wonder why.

this is awkward

At least 15 skeletons of the species – named Homo Naledi – were found hidden deep in a cave dubbed the ‘Star Chamber’ in which is thought to be the earliest form of ritual burial ever discovered.

The early humans stood just five foot tall and weighed 100 pounds. Their hips were similar to our earliest ancestor, the hominid Lucy, but their shoulders were well designed for climbing but legs and feet were human like. Their skulls are like early humans, but their brains are tiny, just the size of an orange.

I’ll take the high route and say this is consistent with another human racial group. Too much similarity for another species.

Before the discovery scientists believed that only Homo sapiens had enough compassion and self awareness to bury the dead.

……Neanderthals don’t exist then, bitch?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/
We learned how to bury and care for the dead from them. From modelling them.

“We are also left with the idea that they did not live there. There is no archaeology. That has led us to the rather remarkable conclusions that we have just met a new species of human relative that deliberatley disposed of its dead inside of the chamber in cradle of mankind.

Like a Missing Link of sorts?

Their deliberate ignorance of evidence is astounding. Confirmation bias much?

“Overall, Homo naledi looks like one of the most primitive members of our genus, but it also has some surprisingly human-like features, enough to warrant placing it in the genus Homo.”

THANK YOU.

H. naledi’s teeth are described as similar to those of the earliest-known human relatives, as are most features of the skull but the shoulders are more similar to those of apes.

Dr Tracy Kivell of the University of Kent, in the UK, said: “The hands suggest tool-using capabilities.

……

“Surprisingly, H. naledi has extremely curved fingers, more curved than almost any other species of early hominin, which clearly demonstrates climbing capabilities.”

*looks at own hands*
I am a monkey? They look like mine. Longer thumb though but bone curvature is normal variance.

“The feet, combined with its long legs, suggest that the species was well-suited for long-distance walking,” he said.

Make your sodding mind up.

Eysenck, one of the greatest psychologists, wrote a HBD book

Betcha didn’t know that.
…Neither did I.

Here’s a review, the book itself is on Amazon.

Click to access eysenck.pdf

The IQ Argument: Race, Intelligence and Education (1971)

This was published before the Bell Curve. Trashed again, too.
If the Bell Curve were published today, it would be undeniable.

Video: The Gay Germ Theory

I’m gonna make this really easy and simple because this guy isn’t a scientist and I’m posting this for curiosity’s sake.

The Party Line as of today (it changes so often);

Born gay/Gay gene? No. We sequenced the whole human genome (the HGP) and we didn’t find it. It isn’t there. We have entirely sequenced many genomes since and it definitely isn’t there. …Unless you argue homosexuals are not a member of homo sapiens. Ouch.
The Gay Uncle ‘hypothesis’ – oh, NOW they like evopsych! They think they can pick and choose, as if the fundamental premises of evolution (and evopsych) selectively apply to an organism according to political expediency! Except…. a fundamental tenet of evopsych is …. the organism’s successful reproduction. Which…. homosexuals are, by definition, incapable of achieving. By evopsychs own priors, it’s impossible. As a theory, which naturally comes under evopsych and requires its priors to stand up to scrutiny? Fail. It isn’t a real evopsych theory. It clashes. Straw clutching.

Now we have that unpleasantness out of the way…

What are the priors of the GG hypothesis? (the theoretical basis which would support it)
I tried to put this in a logical, coherent order as short as humanely possible;

  • the brain takes about a quarter century to fully mature in humans (birth-25yo)
  • during this time, we know humans are susceptible to immunological interference (we call this subject of study immunology, remarkably)
  • the brain is part of both the nervous system and the immune system (that last is incredibly recent)
  • invasive materials can make their way beyond the blood-brain barrier (or BBB, see clinical/neuroscience disorders for all the nasties like brain-eating amoeba, kuru and aluminium-local cell death/neurotoxicity)
  • these include pathogens (but also xenobiotics and other detritus you DO NOT WANT AT ALL)
  • humans are riddled with the things but generally if levels of the good (less harmful, or beneficial stuff) is low the immune system manages to filter it out pretty well
  • combined, our own pathogenic pattern (bacteria, viruses, fungi etc etc), unique as a fingerprint, is called the microbiome
  • it includes what is both outside the body (on the skin, hair, nails) and inside (stomach, primarily)
  • when pathogens get past the BBB, it fucks shit up (hence AT ALL ANYWHERE IN THAT PLACE)
  • like, brain damage and bizarre function and behaviours and it’s like letting a little kid drive a car
  • some pathogens exert controlling behaviours on the organism (e.g. Toxoplasma is the most famous)
  • different pathogens have different effects (duh) as do different strains (also duh)
  • these might vary between organisms based on genetics (epigenetics, controlling various switches on sections of DNA expressed or OFF/inactive)
  • evidence suggests some gut bacteria controls our food choices via the vagus nerve (look it up so you can’t blame me for bias sources)
  • that’s macroscopic, higher-level brain control (motherfuckers)
  • some damage from pathogens is permanent
  • sometimes it lasts until the immune system clears the ‘infection’
  • sometimes a pathogen lies dormant (example everyone knows from school: Herpes)
  • sometimes it is recurring, either from the environment or self-reinfection (microbiome, loved ones or home environment)
  • different strains can reoccur and each new strain cause a different consequence to the body
  • so far, so pretty obvious
  • what about sexuality?
  • in women, sexuality is considered more fluid (fucking impossible to study) and testosterone levels in utero seem a fairly accurate predictor of homosexual tendency
  • consequently, gay germ theory is applied to men, being easier to study with fewer confounds like hormone levels (which don’t really apply)
  • there is an immunological reaction from the mother against male babies in utero if they are younger brothers (antibodies from the firstborn son may cause this overactive reaction to following male siblings)
  • these younger brothers have a much higher chance of being gay as adults (look this up I’m not providing references because it’s broken down)
  • so there is alternate evidence of an immune reaction damaging (or in PC language, altering) the brains somehow with regard to sexuality and this occurs prior to birth (giving opportunity for abortion in the future, but being a weird Born this Way without Conceived this Way)
  • many gay men report being abused physically as children/minors/twinks (look stats up yourself) aka PRIOR to brain maturation
  • why is this important and relevant? STDs, a virulent class of pathogen because pathogens thrive best on mucous membranes (aka mouth, ano-genital region, the prime areas targeted by abusers)
  • the sexual contact needn’t be consensual for STDs to spread to the organism’s microbiome
  • once it’s there, you’re never rid of it, it’s a part of you
  • see the reinfection point above
  • so if it doesn’t change your developing body (or brain) at first, that doesn’t rule out damage later in life
  • if you understand all of this, it’s terrifying
  • there are some studies from the Born this Way crowd who don’t understand neuroscience when they point out with glee “look look! there are different structural brain regions between straight and gay people ZOMG!”
  • how old were they?
  • college-age, right? about 18-21? like most studies?
  • before the brain has finished developing…… (25)…… uhuh……
  • not accounting for individual differences and confounding variables and correlation/causation to imply direct sexuality function
  • but even then, IF we were to ignore those (you shouldn’t but)
  • what’s to say that was the genetic growth trajectory? (caused by genes)
  • why not epigenetics? (can be checked in theory, isn’t)
  • why not pathogenic? (cannot be checked nor ruled out, with present modelling technology)
  • why? bitch, the damage is permanent
  • and since when is a physical abnormality (medical neurological disease technically) for sexuality seen as a good thing? (dumb-arses say “we’re just like you” to “we’re NOTHING like you!”)
  • so we have some structural brain differences
  • between control and experimental groups that primarily differ by sexual orientation (ok)
  • if there is a pathogen which can make an organism not just suppress, but invert, their Darwinian impulses (survive and fuck, in that order of importance) then we MIGHT, just MIGHT have a case to answer
  • ding ding ding I already told you it
  • Toxoplasma gives rats a Death Wish, beyond mere suppression of the will to live
  • by giving them brain damage (their brains are mostly like ours)
  • and they seek out the object/group cause of infection (cats give rats the parasite so rats seek out cats, returning to the origin point)
  • relate this to the abuser facts above and the phrase “cycle of abuse” and cower in Lovecraftian horror
  • how does the brain damage work? oh nothing, just by sexual attraction mechanisms…. no biggie….
  • “That’s right, the rat is turned on. Before it’s permanently turned off.” source, cos it’s a quote
  • so you see, having structural abnormalities in the brain regions associated with sexual desire is, in fact, evidence in favour of the Gay Germ hypothesis and reinforces many many priors (above)
  • homophobia has a higher rate of inheritance than homosexuality does (born this way too?)
  • this is properly (apolitical) the aversion to, and or disgust in response to, the perception of the (un)cleanliness involved with homosexual acts, a common perception being it’s “dirty”
  • in biological terms, a high pathogenic risk factor/behaviour, especially in relation to faeces and anal “sex”
  • which they go on to avoid (and its practicing organisms) in their immediate environment, to protect against infection
  • did I mention Tox-rats get it from cat’s shit? ….from the digestive tract, out of the anus…. which is part of their microbiome…. yeah….. awkward…..
  • this type of latter environmental exposure would explain drastic switches in sexual orientation in middle age or later life (when one organism has encountered millions of pathogens)
  • which coincides with the weakened immune system
  • and neuroplasticity is a thing (when the brain is fully developed, the cells still need to replenish and this process can be damaged or cause abnormal regrowth)
  • Syphilis can reach the brain. Neurosyphilis can cause changes in behaviour. For a prior example in humans.
  • The pathways exist.
  • Herpes may cause brain swelling (aseptic encephalitis).
  • That BBB sure is impenetrable.
  • Sense of smell, as we saw with the Tox-rat, is part of the fundamental sexual desire map of humans (“limbic regions“).
  • Sense of smell is also required for desire of food (see vagus nerve point above and higher-brain control)
  • The amygdala, one of these structures, is constantly reviewing and learning new information (aka theoretically, if we could control this, we could switch homosexuality back to heterosexuality)
  • The hypothalamus, the other, controlled instinct (for food, drink, sex) and is capable of learning….. (same point about switching them back and theoretical conversion therapy applies, switches go both ways)
  • It emotes and governs reproductive behaviours too. A pathogen infecting this region or stimulating it via indirect means (say, another nerve bundle) could easily alter sexual orientation or, especially in the developing brain, to impact later, adult brain structure.
  • “men had greater activity in the amygdala and hypothalamus than did women, writes Hamann. Women showed no significant activation in these regions.” source, hence this applies mostly to men unless refined specifically to account for the many confounds of women, this included.
  • I only covered two brain sections for brevity.
  • It needn’t be an STD form of germ but considering the sexual nature of result (gay sex), those would be the first type of pathogens that require expressly ruling out. And the same pathogens might be transmitted via non-sexual means (e.g. handshake, hug, door handles, whatever).
  • It could be multiple germs. It could be the common cold for all we know. It could be something we could make a vaccine against, now wouldn’t the moral dilemma on that be fun?

I could go on but it would be at risk of repeating myself. That’s a long list.

I think you have enough to go on that this theory, which I was doubtful of myself at first hearing, has much in the way of prior evidence in support of its theoretical basis.

The questions: which pathogen and which brain cells are affected/how require a complete knowledge of the brain to rule out. They require study. If we look for them, and we don’t find them, fair enough. But given the previous findings in these relevant areas, it’s probable we will find something. And the militant gay brigade don’t want us even looking, fuck empiricism, despite how they claim not to believe in it and how we’ll definitely find nothing (then let us look aka science and ‘find nothing’, we call your bluff, if we find nothing you get to spit in our faces and say “we told you so” what’s the problem).

no do not want go away displeased

Another big question: How long can a carrier pass it on?

e.g. The few weeks/months it affects their individual brain structure? (minimal damage radius/vector scenario)
UP TO
Their entire life from the point of infection onward? (maximal)

This is a huge public health risk.

Bonus round: muh INAH3 finding. Let’s get ready to rum-ble!

wow omg likey

Instead of arguing against this bullshit, I’m going to expect a modicum of intelligence from my readers and post extracts from the book Gay Science: The Ethics of Sexual Orientation Research (2013) which discuss this. I think the words you notice and conclusions you draw based on the written priors above will enlighten you. There is also mention of INAH3 findings in transsexuals“These findings suggest that brain anatomy may play a role in gender identity”.

INAH3part1

INAH3part2

INAH3part3

INAH3part4

And the pièce de résistance?

INAH3part5grandfinale

oh damn wow ah