Dr. Robert Jensen
2,519 words
I found Dr. Robert Jensen’s recent interview at Counter-Currents with Hubert Collins refreshing and thought-provoking. It is very seldom that a Leftist academic is willing to have a discussion with White Nationalists at all, and I admire his open-mindedness. He articulated the basis of his outlook very well. Most Leftists take their own outlook for granted and never explain why anyone else ought to share their positions; they react with hysteria to any disagreement.
Dr. Jensen argues that patriarchy is unnatural; that it is the product of particular social conditions and not biologically ingrained. He traces its origins to the agricultural revolution.
“Patriarchy — institutionalized male dominance, anchored in men’s claim of a right to control women’s sexuality and reproductive power” is common among mammals, though whether European society has ever been “anchored in [men’s] claim of a right to control women’s sexuality” is questionable. The genetic material of a society is its most definitive feature, and in every society both men and women have an interest in socially influencing or controlling sexuality and reproduction. Social shaming and other forms of soft control suppress anti-social sexual behavior and come from instinct. Even if slutshaming and other soft enforcement of taboos were not desirable, “liberating” women from it means abandoning freedom of speech.
Male sexual dominance results from an asymmetry in the reproductive interests of males and females. Males have an interest in controlling as many females as they can to maximize their own reproductive success. Females cannot conceive more offspring by mating with more males. It is in their reproductive interests to conceive offspring with the fittest male, and to see that as many resources as possible are expended on those offspring while minimizing the burden to themselves.
Male dominance is not universal among mammals. Basal primates were solitary animals,[1] and evolved sociality separately from other mammals. Monogamous breeding pairs are common among basal primates such as lemurs,[2] [3] and likely were among early primates as well. These pairs are female-dominated. The evolutionary benefits of this are not well understood, but for a monogamous animal there is no particular benefit to male dominance, as its main reproductive advantage lies in controlling multiple females. The dominance of one sex over the other may ease conflict.
We cannot know with confidence the sexual dynamics of pre-agricultural humans. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees and pygmy chimpanzees, are both different from each other and make for a poor comparison with humans. Chimpanzees are patriarchal, while pygmy chimpanzees are matriarchal, but in both species females alone raise offspring and males have a low-investment breeding strategy.[4] Promiscuity is rampant, and males have evolved small penises and large testicles for sperm competition.[5]
Humans show physical adaptations for monogamy and polygyny. The human penis is larger than that of any great ape and unadorned, and the testicles far smaller than those of chimpanzees or pygmy chimpanzees.[6] Monogamy likely evolved in humans because it reduces intragroup competition between males and from sexual selection on the part of females for males with higher investment in their offspring. Women have been shown to be most attracted to male faces that show a combination or balance of masculinized (suggesting higher testosterone and physical strength) and feminized (suggesting a greater tendency towards sexual loyalty) traits.[7] As male dominance holds no particular advantage for a monogamous species, it is likely that Dr. Jensen is largely correct in his view of sexual roles in pre-agricultural societies. There is biological evidence to support this. From the early Stone Age until the Agricultural Revolution, there was a marked decline in the prominence of male brow ridges; a masculinized trait, until it partially rebounded during the early Agricultural Revolution.[8] Greater sexual dimorphism in primates is associated with polygyny or promiscuous mating patterns,[9] both of which create selection pressure for male dominance over females, while monogamy does not. My own speculation is that as expanding populations led to more complex warfare, the leadership of men grew ever more advantageous. The only likely candidate for a matriarchal civilization is ancient Minoa, and it is logical that, isolated on an island and with an unmatched fleet, it may have survived as a remnant of prehistoric matriarchy as late as the Bronze Age.
When he leaps from claiming that patriarchy is a relatively recent development in the natural history of mankind to speaking of the socially constructed “naturalization” of hierarchy itself, Dr. Jensen crosses from the empirically defensible into flight of fancy. This is likewise the case when he attributes human success to Hunter-Gatherers, or when he ignores the thousands of years of biological selection that have occurred since the Agricultural Revolution. Consider that modern Northern Europeans are in large part descended from Western Steppe Herders who only invaded Western Europe in the Late Stone Age.[10] Man today is not the same animal that he was 10,000 years ago. Every change in society necessarily changes selection pressures. Man is as much a part of the natural world as the birds and the bees. The pressures that brought about patriarchal society were as natural as any other.
Dr. Jensen’s case for radical feminism is that
Humans have been successful in evolutionary terms because of our capacity for cooperation and a long history of generally egalitarian social relations, including relations between men and women. Our gathering-and-hunting ancestors did not, for the most part, organize their societies in hierarchical fashion . . .
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
This is an empirical claim, and an easily disproven one. In evolutionary terms, an organism’s success lay in spreading its genes. The Agricultural Revolution and the changes that it brought about led to a massive increase in the human population.[11] Everywhere that Hunter-Gatherers have encountered agriculturalists, they have been shown to have lower evolutionary fitness than them. Of the three population groups that contributed to modern Europeans, the aboriginal Western Hunter-Gatherers left the smallest genetic legacy.[12] Their contribution is smaller than that of the Early European Farmers who entered the continent from Anatolia, and the Western Steppe Herder pastoralists that invaded from the East and bequeathed Europe her language and culture.[13] In Japan, the native Jōmon Hunter-Gatherers were replaced at around 90% by Yayoi and Kofun agriculturalists.[14] In Southern Africa, the native Bushmen hunter-gatherers were similarly outmatched by the agricultural Bantu.[15] Attributing the success of mankind to its most primitive and backwards societies is not only absurd, it is reactionary in the truest sense.
Inequality and hierarchy are the law throughout the animal world.[16] There is nothing in human behavior that is unique among animals. It is only a matter of complexity. More cognitively-developed mammals and birds communicate in a basic language consisting of at most a few dozen auditory or somatic signals, each functioning like an ideogram; an alarm call to signal a predator, a snarl to say “back off,” a lowered head to show submission. Men have a more detailed language of words and grammar; a difference of degree, not kind. The differences in hierarchy are of a far lesser degree. Animals can inherit both materials and social status.[17] Hierarchy and cooperation are inseparable. More advanced, civilized societies have more complex hierarchies because they demand more complex forms of cooperation than merely that needed for hunting and gathering. The degree of difference is even less marked with nationalism. Nations and wolfpacks both have borders; only we mark our territories with posts and fences instead of urine.[18] Dr. Robert Sapolsky, a liberal Jew who studies primates, was forced by his research to the following conclusion:
Primates are hard-wired for us/them dichotomies. Our brains detect them in less than 100 milliseconds. Our views about things are driven by implicit (unconscious) processes. It’s depressing as hell. A hormone like oxytocin makes you nicer to “us” and crappier to “them.” What hormones are good at is magnifying things that are already there. That tells you that ‘us and them’ is a fundamental fault line in our brains.[19]
Dr. Jensen cannot dismiss this as “irrational” without stepping upon his own arguments for the benefits feminism brings to men. Patriarchy, he claims, restricts men with “rigid” and “repressive” gender norms. It keeps them from “embrac[ing] a fuller range of human emotions and capacities.” It “destroy[s] the possibility of experiencing real intimacy.” Is there any experience so wholly irrational as love and intimacy? Ingroup preferences are instinctual. Dr. Jensen admits that “xenophobia” has an “appeal . . . not just today on the Right but throughout human history.” Anti-racism is psychological repression. I am not convinced that masculinity is anything other than the natural inclination of men, but if it is an emotionally repressive force, any condemnation on those grounds ought to be applied universally.
There is no risk that Dr. Jensen’s views might ever win widespread support. They are far more unpopular than White Nationalism. There will never be a populist uprising to “dramatically reduce per capita consumption in the First World — not just of the top 1% or top 10%, but of everyone except the poorest,” or to throw open the gates to the Third World so that the quality of life in the nations of the global North and South might be leveled in pursuit of an “equitable distribution of wealth in the world.” As an individual, he seems well-intentioned and utterly harmless. He could be dismissed as an eccentric but for the practical effects of his views.
Dr. Jensen notes that essentially Leftist ideas are “applied according to the cynical interests” of American hegemony in foreign policy. The same is true of domestic policy.
It is precisely because his views on race are so widely rejected by the public (Critical Race Theory can’t even win 30% of the popular vote in San Francisco[20]) and yet shared by powerful elites that it is critical to confront them. To the extent that discrimination against non-whites stubbornly persists in America, it is entirely a grassroots affair. It exists in spite of official condemnation. The practical function of the supposed moral imperative to create equality, of the entire anti-discrimination paradigm from the beginning of the “Civil Rights” movement, is to provide justification to massively expand the power of reigning institutions. The supposed moral need for equity demands social changes to create an impossible equality. These changes are too contrary to instinct to win public support; the task falls entirely on the existing power structure. The supposed moral imperative for them becomes an anti-democratic myth, pitting a “progressive” elite against a resistant population. The elite is legitimized in reshaping society in ways that bolster its own power, such as importing cheap labor and pro-system voters from the Third World, or massive wealth transfers from small businesses to oligarchs through Coronavirus restrictions and racial justice riots. All opposition to the unrestrained exercise of power by the reigning system is delegitimized as contrary to the moral imperative for equity. The impossibility of equality is a feature, not a bug. What better goal to justify ruling power than one that can never be realized?
The practical effects of Dr. Jensen’s egalitarian advocacy are not radical at all, but quite the opposite, as they uphold and entrench existing power. Only White Nationalism, which utterly rejects the currently reigning system’s moral foundations entirely and embraces — not represses — natural instinct can truthfully promise a new, different, and better society.
Bibliography
Alfaro, Michael E, B Natterson-Horowitz & Jennifer E Smith. “The nature of privilege: intergenerational wealth in animal societies,” Behavioral Ecology 33, no. 1 (January/February 2022): 1-6.
Barbieri, Chiara, Anne Butthof, Koen Bostoen & Brigitte Pakendorf. “Genetic perspectives on the origin of clicks in Bantu languages from southwestern Zambia,” European Journal of Human Genetics 21, no. 4 (2013): 430-436.
Bernstein, Brittany. “Recalled San Francisco School-Board President Claims ‘White Supremacists’ Are to Blame for Her Loss,” National Review, February 17, 2022.
Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropology. “Parental Investment.” Topics. Accessed March 5, 2022.
Cook, Niall P., Valeria Mattiangeli, Lara M. Cassidy, Kenji Okazaki, Caroline A. Stokes, Shin Onbe, Satoshi Hatakeyama, Kenichi Machida, Kenji Kasai & Naoto Tomioka et al. “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations,” Science Advances 7, no. 38 (September 2021).
Fietz, Joanna. “Monogamy as a Rule Rather than Exception in Nocturnal Lemurs: the Case of the Fat-tailed Dwarf Lemur, Cheirogaleus medius,” Ethology: International Journal of Behavioral Biology 105, no. 3 (December 2001).
Haak, Wolfgang, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Bastien Llamas, Guido Brandt, Susanne Nordenfelt, Eadaoin Harney & Kristin Stewardson et al. “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe,” Nature 522 (2015): 207–211.
Heesy, Christopher P. & Callum F. Ross. “Evolution of activity patterns and chromatic vision in primates: morphometrics, genetics and cladistics,” Journal of Human Evolution 40, no. 2 (February 2001): 111-149.
Holzleitner, Iris J. & David I. Perrett. “Women’s Preferences for Men’s Facial Masculinity: Trade-Off Accounts Revisited,” Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 3, no. 4 (2017): 304-320.
Jacobs, Tom. “WHY WE ENGAGE IN TRIBALISM, NATIONALISM, AND SCAPEGOATING,” Pacific Standard, March 5, 2018.
Kappeler, Peter & Carel Schaik. “The evolution of social monogamy in primates.” In Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals, ed. Ulrich H. Reichard and Christophe Boesch, 59-80. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Maslin, Mark. “Early humans had to become more feminine before they could dominate the planet,” The Conversation, June 18, 2015.
Maslin, Mark. “Why did humans evolve big penises but small testicles?”, The Conversation, January 25, 2017.
THULETIDE. “Animal Tribalism: Studies prove that in-group preference (“racism”) is a natural phenomenon found throughout the animal kingdom,” POLITICS, RACE, STATISTICS AND DATA. Accessed March 5, 2022.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Notes
[1] Christopher P. Heesy & Callum F. Ross, “Evolution of activity patterns and chromatic vision in primates: morphometrics, genetics and cladistics,” Journal of Human Evolution 40, no. 2 (February 2001): 111-149.
[2] Carel Schaik & Peter Kappeler, “The evolution of social monogamy in primates,” in Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals, ed. Ulrich H. Reichard and Christophe Boesch (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 59-80.
[3] Joanna Fietz, “Monogamy as a Rule Rather than Exception in Nocturnal Lemurs: the Case of the Fat-tailed Dwarf Lemur, Cheirogaleus medius,” Ethology: International Journal of Behavioral Biology 105, no. 3 (December 2001).
[4] “Parental Investment,” Topics, Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropology, Accessed March 5, 2022.
[5] Mark Maslin, “Why did humans evolve big penises but small testicles?”, The Conversation, January 25, 2017.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Iris J. Holzleitner & David I. Perrett, “Women’s Preferences for Men’s Facial Masculinity: Trade-Off Accounts Revisited,” Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 3, no. 4 (2017): 304-320.
[8] Mark Maslin, “Early humans had to become more feminine before they could dominate the planet,” The Conversation, June 18, 2015.
[9] Maslin, “Big penises but small testicles.”
[10] Wolfgang Haak et al., “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe,” Nature 522 (2015): 207–211.
[11] Xiaoming Liu, “Human Prehistoric Demography Revealed by the Polymorphic Pattern of CpG Transitions,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 37, no. 9 (September 2020): 2691–2698.
[12] Haak, “Massive migration from the steppe,” 207-211.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Niall P. Cook et al., “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations,” Science Advances 7, no. 38 (September 2021).
[15] Chiara Barbieri et al., “Genetic perspectives on the origin of clicks in Bantu languages from southwestern Zambia,” European Journal of Human Genetics 21, no. 4 (2013): 430-436.
[16] Michael E Alfaro, B Natterson-Horowitz & Jennifer E Smith, “The nature of privilege: intergenerational wealth in animal societies,” Behavioral Ecology 33, no. 1 (January/February 2022): 1-6.
[17] Ibid.
[18] “Animal Tribalism: Studies prove that in-group preference (“racism”) is a natural phenomenon found throughout the animal kingdom,” POLITICS, RACE, STATISTICS AND DATA, THULETIDE, accessed March 5, 2022.
[19] Tom Jacobs, “WHY WE ENGAGE IN TRIBALISM, NATIONALISM, AND SCAPEGOATING,” Pacific Standard, March 5, 2018.
[20] Brittany Bernstein, “Recalled San Francisco School-Board President Claims ‘White Supremacists’ Are to Blame for Her Loss,” National Review, February 17, 2022.
10 comments
This is a superb reply.
I think one of the most basic ways of dividing people between “Left” and “Right” is whether they consider your line, “Hierarchy and cooperation are inseparable” true or false.
Thank you. That is high praise, coming from someone I’ve been reading for years.
There is a lot of abuse of ‘hunter-gatherer’ (HG) peoples by the Left. They are often just a target for the projection of leftist ideology. However, that doesn’t mean that the author is right to dismiss the contribution of HGs to our civilization. The ‘genetic contribution’ is not the only contribution a people make. Arguably, much of the non-hierarchical spiritual impulse of White people is connected to the hunter-gatherer peoples. The 60s were very much a efflorescence of HG sensibilities. The difference between the shaman and the priest are not negligible but the latter can reasonbly be imagined as a ‘captured’ version of the former. These are also the same people who held onto their culture despite the successive waves of both the agrarians and the charioteers for 7000 years and are still around. Show me a civilization that’s lasted as long as the HGs. Deleauze and Guattari have a very nice riff on the difference between the pre-State consciousness of HGs and what came after in their chapter on the War Machine in A Thousand Plateaus.
There has always been a natural division of labor between men and women. Women have children and men protect and support them. Male strength, courage and capacity for violence were essential to the existence of people in the pre-industrial age. Without male strength and protection, survivial of vulnerable women and children would have been unsustainable.
Now we have the industrial world and electricity and indoor plumbing and computers, etc., and women no longer have to rely on men for their bare physical safety and existence in this world. But have you noticed how all these “strong independent” women so frequently get up in public and weep in order to get sympathy? Hillary Clinton comes immediately to mind. Look at Blasie Ford, that lying whore who accused Kavanaugh of raping her decades ago and went into Congress weeping and wailing for sympathy in opposing his nomination to the Supreme Court. Look at that lying whore Anita Hill, who accused Clarence Thomas of asking her for a date and making her feel “uncomfortable.”
This Reply to Jensen is good but over intellectualized, I think. The differences between men and woman are so obvious to me that maybe I’m too dense to appreciate and tolerate all the phony BS.
I’m a wordcel.
Overintellectualising is my thing.
Now we have the industrial world and electricity and indoor plumbing and computers, etc., and women no longer have to rely on men for their bare physical safety and existence in this world.
This really freaks you out, doesn’t it? There is really no need for you to get so bent out of shape about it. Womwn certainly don’t give it much thought.
It’s interesting that, even if they “don’t need no man,” every single one of them appears to have wanted one. CBF has been married for twenty years and has two sons. Anita Hill never married, but has a BF of 10 years. We want you and we love you, and like Meatloaf said, two out of three ain’t bad.
CBF’s husband actually gave a sworn affidavit to the effect that she told him about the alleged incident, including the alleged perpetrator in 2012. I probably would never have known that but for this post. I will have to reconsider my prior skepticism.
In defense of Anita Hill:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/154651-what-did-clarence-thomas-say-to-anita-hill-hbos-confirmation-brings-her-allegations-back-into-the
We can argue about whether these things did or did not happen, and we can argue about whether they should be considered actionable sexual harassment, but I hope we don’t have to argue about whether a person who engages in such behavior should be a judge, let alone the serve on the highest court in the land.
To the author, thanks for this:
Women have been shown to be most attracted to male faces that show a combination or balance of masculinized (suggesting higher testosterone and physical strength) and feminized (suggesting a greater tendency towards sexual loyalty) traits.
This makes perfect sense, of course. Manosphere speculation about “women’s nature” has always failed to take account of countervailing selection pressures, and is therefore total nonsense.
Even if slutshaming and other soft enforcement of taboos were not desirable, “liberating” women from it means abandoning freedom of speech.
Shaming the shamers is not “abandoning free speech,” it is just free speech that misogynists don’t like.
There is no requirement for either equal protection or due process for those facing “soft enforcement of taboos.” This is, of course, a feature not a bug to some. Premarital sex is either gravely harmful or it is not. In the former case, it should be recriminalized with all the legal protections that go along with that. In the latter case, there is no reason to shame anyone for it.
You think that there is no in-between? Would you criminalise everything unhealthy or socially undesirable?
It is often better to leave the state out of such matters and let society deal with them on its own.
Obviously there are limits to this. If the state stays out of homicide you end up with blood feuds. It is likely better to have the police deal with stolen property than have individuals try and retrieve it themselves.
But as far as enforcement of taboos is concerned, my own preference is to leave the state out of it to the greatest extent possible, and let human nature take command.
But as far as enforcement of taboos is concerned, my own preference is to leave the state out of it to the greatest extent possible, and let human nature take command.
I guess so. In this case at least, it leaves you with the same ole double standard men have always cherished.
The whole point of decriminalizing fornication was that it is harmless. Now you want to bring back shaming because you think it isn’t harmless after all. Being legal, boys and young men are free to brag about it without risk of consequences. Rejected suitors would even be able to make things up out of spite, and like they say, the truth is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. A girl would then have no opportunity to confront and rebut the slander.
How about a little White Shariah?
The woman and the man guilty of zināʾ (for fornication or adultery),- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their their punishment.
-Sura 24
Note that, unless there is a pregnancy, the government only gets involved if someone starts running his mouth. Otherwise, how would anybody know?
I am also on Gab now. If anyone else is there and has some followers, I would appreciate it if you would shill me.
https://gab.com/JamesTucker9178
“The impossibility of equality is a feature, not a bug. What better goal to justify ruling power than one that can never be realized?”
This statement is a dagger of truth.
On another subject, speaking of Hunter Gatherers, I read recently that women are naturally better climbers than men cause in HG society they slept in trees for added protection.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.