Is Modernity Anti-White?

I was inspired by a question from a Facebook friend, which asked “Why is it that white supremacy so so demonized, but there are Afrocentrists and black supremacists espousing the same positions, but they get a pass?”  This is puzzling. Why is it that Zionists, who are merely Jewish nationalists and semitocentrists, are beloved by Evangelical Christians, but German nationalists are reviled? The basic bitch response is because Hitler was evil, and this story tends to work until you become aware of counter-narrative facts such as the methodical genocide of the Palestinians ever since the creation of the state of Israel. On the surface, this double-standard appears to be simply anti-white.


Similarly, I have head questions such as “Why don’t feminists care about the Rotherham rape rings?” This is also puzzling. Feminism supposedly seeks to protect women, and protecting women from rape is apparently a top priority, considering the hysterical assertions of ‘rape culture’ on American college campuses over the past few years. Nevermind that these accusations of rape appear to be hoax after hoax. Either way, feminists should be concerned about rape. But, to my knowledge, there is zero acknowledgement by feminists of 1,400 little English girls being systematically raped by Pakistani immigrants in England. It is hard to look at these facts and not surmise that feminism is anti-white. But to many, this simply doesn’t make sense. How can feminism be anti-white when it is about gender? Obviously, that’s because it is not really about gender. What is it about then? In practice it is anti-white. Something deeper is happening. In essence it is anti Western.

The Philosopher’s Stone

Let’s then analyze this with some tools provided by Curt Doolittle’s Propertarianism. This Fall, Curt provided a neat little Short Course on Propertarian Reasoning. I’ll pull out a few points which apply directly to this topic (emphasis mine).

1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition — at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition — at additional cost. Reason improves acquisition — at additional cost. Cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.

2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.

We are alive and as life forms we must acquire resources in order to perpetuate life. We are sets of genes which are designed to move themselves forward through time. Pretty simple, right? Only an anti-natalist retard could have a problem with this assertion. (I have little patience for those who cannot understand the basis of life).

This is so simple that you may mistake it for a truism, and wave it off. I wish to impress on you that this is not a truism: We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy. We may not be aware that we are doing so, but everything we do is in furtherance of our reproductive strategy, to act counter to this is to act counter to our nature. And what is the primary need of our reproduction? To acquire.

3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.

The female reproductive strategy conflicts with the male’s. She wishes to acquire resources for reproduction at the expense of males, and to be free to breed with the best male she can find, at her choosing. This is the essence of women’s liberation and female hypergamy. You may also recognize this reproductive strategy as r-selected, if you are familiar with r/K Selection Theory as applied to politics.

6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. Ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.

This may be a hard one to swallow, but once you understand this, then much of the world makes sense. In the Manosphere, we will often see the female mind referred to as ‘the hamster’. The hamster is the rationalization process, whereby a female turns her emotions into language. This is derided, but found to be true.

This position is well documented by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt and is an essential component of his Moral Foundations Theory. In his 2001 paper, The Emotional Dog and It’s Rationalist Tail, Haidt asserts “The author gives 4 reasons for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. ” Consider the metaphor in the title of the paper: the dog wagging its tail. In this metaphor, the dog is human emotion, and it is this emotion which causes the tail to wag: the reasoning. Emotion comes first and is then rationalized into language: this is the action of ‘the hamster’, but it is not just women who do this, we all do it.

Haidt has performed numerous experiments which prove this is true. He has a fascinating talk where he discusses what he calls The Rationalist Delusion, which is the delusion that humans are rationally driven. This does not mean that humans cannot reason, we can, it just means that the vast majority of the time we are simply using intuitive thinking (which is intelligence that is sub-conscious) which is then communicated into consciousness via emotion and then the consciousness translates that emotion into language. This is what it means to rationalize: to feel first then translate into words.

Again, the important thing for you to remember is that Language is purely justificationaryAll ‘belief’ is justification and It is meaningless.

What is important to life? That we acquire. What is language? A negotiating tool for our acquisition. That’s it.

12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.

Cooperation is simply a reproductive strategy, but it’s not the only one. There is also parasitism, or conflict. We have found that the rewards of cooperation are disproportionate, or “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. We organize ourselves into large groups and we cooperate and coerce each other as classes. I have done some work on the Three Estates of the Realm, which are classes of humans, organized into a division of labor, which has existed for a thousand years. One of the primary ways we do this is through narrative. Often, those in the alt-right will reference ‘The Narrative’, meaning the dominant narrative in the West. This is just a story told by a group. Why do groups tell stories? For the same reasons that individuals justify their intuitions: to serve their reproductive interests, to acquire. The narratives are meaningless, they are devoid of absolute truth. The only meaning is how they advance the reproductive interests of the group, they should only be investigated to determine what the group wishes to acquire and how.

5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.

Western society can be divided up into classes of people based on their preferred method of coercion. These are the Three Estates of the Realm. It may be interesting to note that this use of narrative, of gossip and shaming, is female in nature. Is it any wonder that ‘The Narrative’ is so female focused? That New Age mysticism and Kaballah are concerned with Goddesses?  With Gaia? Modernity is feminine. Remember that, shitlord.

13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.

In this instance, the groups are tribes or nations. Various nations find strategies to survive, depending on the environment and their innate predispositions.

The Wolf’s Treasure

The West is a treasure trove. It is full of riches now. It contains the most advanced and productive societies on Earth. How did it get so?

14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.

This is where it is important to understand r/K Selection Theory as it applies to politics. The West has now accumulated capital through “competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction”. The West evolved under K-Selection, which is selection of genetic quality rather than genetic quantity. r-Selection, is a selects for genetic quantity. Think wolves and rabbits. The wolf is K-Selected, adapted for an environment of limited resources, and since the carrying capacity of the environment is low, then the highest quality genes must be preserved. The rabbit is r-selected, adapted for a resource rich environment where the strategy is to simply create as many offspring as possible.

By continuing the process of K-Selection, even as resources became more abundant, the West accumulated capital and Western civilization. In this way, the treasure trove was filled. Now we live in a world of abundance. As the environment has become more rich in resources, we have seen a natural shift to r-selection. Wolves fight, and compete and keep their numbers low to be ready for the lean times when winter comes. Rabbits screw and eat and let the winter worry about itself.

The West engaged in what Curt terms genetic pacification, or eugenic evolution. This is a process of self-cultivation. You hang your criminals and don’t let the deficient breed. This K-Selected strategy is masculine. Men are a pack, and women are a herd. Men are the herders of women.

Western civilization is a treasure trove. It is a lush green field of with plenty of resources for the rabbits. It’s fun to screw and eat. Our rabbits don’t use violence. Our rabbits use words. They use stories. They use narrative.

What is the meaning of the narratives of the rabbits? Nothing. Their beliefs and narratives are completely devoid of meaning. They are simply a means to an end: to acquire resources.

The Rabbit’s Gambit

The West has created a land of plenty. The rabbits wish to feast in the land of plenty, and to eat the accumulated capital of the West. The West has created an unmatched system of production which can support a vast amount of reproduction, having continually broken out of any predicted Malthusian traps. The rabbits see this delightful garden and are ready to eat and screw, but the wolves have been limiting the population of the rabbits.

The rabbits need a way to get these wonderful resources.  So, they tell a story, a narrative, which has no meaning, which is fabricated solely for the purpose of acquiring. For example, one such story is “European ethnocentrism and European nationalism is evil. It is founded on conquest, theft, rape, and white supremacy. African and Jewish ethnocentrism is good. All non-whites can form groups and advocate for their interests, but it is evil for whites to do so.”

We could be fooled by these words if we took them at face value. But, we have the propertarian insight:

6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. Ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.

Now does the narrative make sense? We can translate it now: Gibsmedat (that’s “give me that” for all you normalfags). That’s it. “You have something I want, now give it to me”. There is no empirical content to the narrative of white supremacy. It is a story which resonates in the white psyche, it is the button which the rabbit pushes to get food. Every time the rabbit hits the feeder bar, free resources appear, the rabbit breeds and makes new rabbits who hit the feeder bar.

Racism? Gibsmedat.
Sexism? Gibsmedat.
Misogyny? Gibsmedat.
White Supremacy? Gibsmedat.

Is modernity anti-white? Yes. The owners of the treasure trove are Western. It’s also anti-male, because the owners of the treasure trove are Western men. In order to pry the resources of the West out of the hands of Western men, these narratives have evolved, purely because this is a psychological weakness of the West. Cooperation is our greatest strength, so we allow free speech in order to transmit empirical data about the best means of cooperating. All science is the attempt to ascertain truth, thus our cultural insistence on free speech. The rabbits have been able to exploit the Western high-trust communication network and inject self-serving narratives into it for the purpose of acquiring resources.

Looking at Rotherham, it now becomes clear why feminists are not concerned with Pakistanis raping little English girls: because feminism is concerned with acquiring power over the resources of the West. Because of this, their focus is perpetually on hammering Western males with the narrative. In this goal, women and non-whites are in league against Western males. They will happily talk about the hoaxed rape culture on campus, because that is an attack on white males. They have no interest in poor Pakistani rapists because there are no resources to acquire from them.

An interesting note is that according to Haidt, our intuitions are translated into emotions which are then translated into language, words, narrative. This means that the non-whites and females which wish to consume the accumulated capital of the West for their own reproduction, do not begin with this as a rational goal. They just have a feeling. They know what they want, and they attack intuitively. They know who has what they want, and they just happened upon these narratives that work: racism, white supremacy, sexism, etc.

An important corollary to this insight is that there is no reasoning with the rabbits. They need to acquire resources for reproduction. Western men have those resources. There is no counter-narrative which can convince the rabbits to stop behaving according to this evolutionary strategy. Notice I said that there is no counter-narrative. I did not say that there is no counter-measure.

Becoming Wolves

This Propertarian analysis will help you make sense of the contradictory narratives which confront us daily. The conclusion is clear: these narratives are nothing more than lies. There is no rational counter argument which can prevent these lies from propagating. On the other hand, just as we cannot reason with the rabbits, it is easy for us to convince the wolves. Currently, we have a lot of wolves who think they are rabbits. Don’t waste your time trying to convince women or non-Europeans as to the justice of our cause. They are cognitively blind to it, because their reproductive strategies are at direct odds with the Western male’s reproductive strategy. If we can show our brothers that continuing down this r-selected path will consume the accumulated capital of the West, and that this is against their reproductive interests, then they can learn to be deaf to the lies.

There is also another strategy: we can silence the liars. The feminine method of coercion is gossip, rallying and shaming: using words. The masculine method of coercion is force. It takes orders of magnitude larger amounts of effort to attempt to correct a lie using words alone. But force, when applied judiciously, can silence the source of the lies. We must not be afraid to play to our strengths and to use force to coerce society to our cause.

We, the men of the West, must band together in our shared reproductive interests. We must end the dominance of the feminine narrative, by any means necessary. There is no more moral act than fighting for the survival of our people. If you love the West, if you love Western civilization, if you love your family, if you love yourself, then it is time to become wolves again.

Huntington vs Fukuyama

In 1992 esteemed economist Francis Fukuyama published a work of Progressive triumphalism, The End of History and the Last Man. Therein Fukuyama posited that man had reached the end of history, being “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” I am not trying to be unkind when I label this Progressive triumphalism, but there isn’t really any other way to take such a grandiose statement.

As a counterpoint, Samuel P. Huntington of the American Enterprise Institute offered his thesis, which later was published as a full-length book titled Clash of Civilizations. His thesis was that the happy Progressive Utopia had not arrived, and he pointed to the source of future conflicts:

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

Fukuyama believes that the greatness of the Progressive ideology has nearly brought about heaven on Earth. Huntington knows this is nonsense and points to culture as an indomitable force which no ideology can overcome. Huntington was close, but Doolittle is closer still.


Fukuyama and Huntington believe that ideologies and culture are nothing more than ideas, so if we can get everyone to think the same thoughts and share the same culture, then the conflicts will end. Are any of you thinking Orwell or New World Order right now? Among modern elites, the persistence of war within the international order is explained by the absence of a world police state, because such a police state could regulate the ideas that cause war.

One of Curt Doolittle’s key insights is that humans use language to justify their moral intuitions, and moral intuitions are the expression of reproductive strategy. Notice how Fukuyama and Huntington are both talking about ideas, but Doolittle is talking about genes (reproductive strategy). The moderns think that ideas are things that come out of the ether — mystically and magically. The idea is that humans use language to negotiate on behalf of their genes, and to defend the reproductive strategy that best suits those genes. So genes and their reproductive strategies come first, then they are translated into language to defend the reproductive strategy.

Following this line of logic, for Fukuyama’s assertion  to be true (that the ideology of Western liberal democracy was the final ideological endpoint of mankind), then it must be true that all mankind shares the same reproductive strategy. Otherwise, if there are groups of humans that engage in competing reproductive strategies, then those groups cannot share the same ideology. We know that humans do engage in various and competing reproductive strategies, which precludes ideological uniformity.

I don’t know if Huntington knew of Dual inheritance theory. This theory encapsulates the idea that genes and culture co-evolve. Humans enshrine the ideas that lead to good outcomes in their culture and also instill prohibitions against ideas that lead to bad outcomes. This culture then affects the population and sexual selection, which then shifts the frequency of genes in the population, which then shifts the culture, and so on. Had he known this theory, then he may not have relied solely on culture as the force that cannot be trumped by ideology, because culture itself is influenced by the genes (and the reproductive strategy of those genes) within a population. Still, he was closer than Fukuyama, who probably is unaware that there is even a connection between genes and ideology.

The truth is that political ideologies exist to perpetuate and justify group reproductive strategies. Each group, having slightly different reproductive strategies, will justify those strategies with political ideologies. The ideologies themselves should be seen as reflections of the reproductive strategy.

Each group uses a different interpretation of truth in order to justify its evolutionary strategy. The principle reason for Western exceptionalism is that we actually use Truth proper — what in philosophy is referred to as performative truth, or more correctly as Testimonial Truth: Testimony that corresponds with reality regardless of cost to us. We pay the very high cost of telling the truth as our principle contribution to the commons (tax). The result of testimonial truth is that we can rely upon the common law, judge and jury, which produces economic velocity by reducing risk, by reducing the time between invention of new means of free riding, and the evolution of the law against free riding; and by reducing the opportunity for parasitism (free riding) to gain a normative or institutional foothold. The second reason for Western exceptionalism is that we can, and did, evolve reason, logic and science as institutions. Truth telling is hard and expensive; It is the most expensive commons one can construct. That is why no one else has done it.

Wars will continue. There will continue to be not a clash of cultures, or civilizations, but of competing genetic interests. We Westerners must know ourselves. Only by truly understanding our reproductive strategy can we hope to defend it and perpetuate it, and our people. We have withstood a century of mysticism. It is time that we tell the truth again.

Note: This post was inspired by Curt Doolittle’s August 2014 post: Is Self-Deception Possible?

Propaganda Science – Ingroups and Outgroups

Much of what passes for science today will need to be erased. It will be necessary to either revise 100 years of mysticism dressed up as science, or excise it completely and start from scratch. Either way, there are a lot of corrections to make.

As an example of modern day pseudoscience, I place into evidence this wiki article on ingroups and outgroups. Let us now imagine that we are in a tribal region in the Middle East. There are multiple tribes which are tightly genetically related, as societies that practice cousin marriage are wont to produce.

For an enlightening discussion of the political ramifications of consanguinity, I place into evidence Steve Sailer’s Cousin Marriage Conundrum. In that 2003 article, Steve Sailer points out that American foreign policy with regards to nation building in Iraq, and the region in general, is completely ignorant of the facts on the ground with regard to the tribalism that consanguinity produces. He points out that tribalism precludes large corporate institutions (governments) from functioning. He points out that democracy cannot take root in such a tribal society. Fast forward to the end of the Iraq war and the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. Steve Sailer’s predictions have been born out to be true. While the mystical belief in democracy has been shown to be patently false. The mystical belief was that if the American government simply gave the Arabs a constitutional form of government, that it would take root and flourish, because all humans are equal and there is nothing special about the European peoples themselves which make Western forms of government possible. While American foreign policy appears to be scientific, it is nothing of the sort, because it is refuses to recognize the role that genetics plays in various populations, and that due to genetic drift, different populations are, well, different.

Cousin Marriage throughout the world

Cousin Marriage throughout the world

Let’s look a little closer at the summarizing paragraph at the top of the wiki article:

In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view themselves according to their race, culture, gender, age, or religion. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.[…] The significance of ingroup and outgroup categorization was identified using a method called the minimal group paradigm. Tajfel and colleagues found that people can form self-preferencing ingroups within a matter of minutes and that such groups can form even on the basis of seemingly trivial characteristics, such as preferences for certain paintings.

Oh, so ingroups are psychological identifications, and ingroups form even on trivial characteristics. Does it seem that this wiki article is forgetting something? It neglects that ingroups form primarily on genetic relatedness. It clearly states that ingroups are merely a psychological identification, often based on trivial characteristics. This is a pseudoscientific view, one that attempts to push the enlightenment narrative.

A scientific view of the situation would be like Steve Sailer’s. It would take into account that close genetic distance creates bonds between groups of humans, and that it simultaneously has a polarizing effect on groups of humans which do not share the close genetic distance. In short, it would take into account that there are ingroups and outgroups. The ingroups trust themselves only, and they mistrust anyone in the outgroup. The reason why is perfectly clear: because groups of genes which are different are competing in a world of limited resources to be able to propagate themselves. This is the default throughout much of the world. The Northwest European peoples are different, they are outbred. The Arab peoples are inbred. Outbreeding spreads ingroup trust to everyone. Inbreeding creates tribes. Outbred polities can create high-trust systems and create common institutions, like markets and governments. Inbred polities (tribes) do not trust each other enough to do business with the neighboring tribes, and they definitely do not trust the neighboring tribes to run their common government. The failure of democracy in Arabia is explained very via genetics and the evolutionary psychology of trust.

At the bottom, a grudging nod to reality appears in the Postulated role in human evolution section. Postulated, mind you.

In evolutionary psychology, ingroup favoritism is seen as an evolved mechanism selected for the advantages of coalition affiliation. It has been argued that characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are inflexible or even essential features of such systems. However, there is evidence that elements of favoritism are flexible in that they can be erased by changes in social categorization. One study in the field of behavioural genetics suggests that biological mechanisms may exist which favor a coexistence of both flexible and essentialist systems.

In summary, the nation-building exercise in Iraq was a spectacular failure. The post WWII order of nation states created by the Europeans in the Middle East is falling apart. The strong men supported by the West that were keeping disparate tribes organized into functional economic units have lost that support and were subsequently deposed or executed. Democracy has not taken root, instead tribal sectarianism has returned to the region without the a Western imperial power holding it together. The failure of democracy in the Middle East was predicted by Steve Sailer in 2003 based on his assessment of the effects of ingroup and outgroup behavior created by consanguineous marriage.

Yet, evolutionary psychology continues to be marginalized. How many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives have been wasted in the Iraq war alone, due to this persistent mystical belief in democracy and human equality? How much longer do we have to live in this age of mysticism, where the importance of genetics on our thinking, preferences, and norms are ignored?