Counter-Currents
1,723 words
I hope to see a rehabilitation and mass adoption of sociobiology and its thought tools in the years to come. The notion of society, human affairs, and politics as products of biology and the social sphere influencing biology, rather than the two magisteria being separate from each other, seemed intuitive to our ancestors, before socio and bio were cruelly rent from each other in the inglorious culmination of mind-body dualism which has plagued Western philosophy since the time of Plato.
For reasons historic as well as hubristic, Western man dislikes thinking of himself as an animal. We use comparisons to animals as insults in all European languages, German considering them as particularly severe. Our friends in dearly denuded Deutschland use essen for consumption done by humans and fressen when the same act is done by animals. In part, this is justified: Eating is much more than consumption of sustenance for man (or should be, at any rate). On the other hand, by forgetting our animal nature we destroy the biological basis of our existence and cease to exist.
A part of the Dissident Right movement is almost solely dedicated to bringing sociobiological thinking back into discourse. We call these people the human biodiversity (HBD) crowd. They have the perennial favorites of racial IQ differences, racial differences in criminality, and gender differences in physical aptitude, among others. They are very good at gathering the data on the bio part of sociobiology, but they rarely venture into the socio bit, partly because venturing into it armed with biology is a very good way to invite deplatforming, persecution, fines, arrests, and harassment from the ruling regime — partly because semi-autistic data-crunching HBD people rarely have the personality type to see the sociological picture. Specifically, they usually lack the ability to extrapolate out a forest from the individual trees. When they try to, the results are usually embarrassing. For this reason, while the biological component of sociobiology is usually very well covered, in the socio components there be for the most part dragons.
Let’s demonstrate the nature of the imbalance by presenting a problem we’re painfully familiar with: white demographic displacement. Due to mass immigration of non-whites into white countries and the higher birthrates of non-white populations, white people are being displaced from their homelands. We all know the projections; there’s even a countdown clock. This is very obviously a problem; a biological problem. And biological problems require biological solutions. An obvious answer presents itself: Make white babies.
The exhortation for white people, and especially racially-conscious white people, to reproduce, and to reproduce at a higher rate than they would otherwise, is one of the most common reactions of people exposed to the problem of white demographic displacement. It is a very direct way of tackling the problem: We must outbreed the blacks and browns. The white birthrate is too low, so we must boost it. It also appeals to our biases, formed by the prevailing liberal interpretative framework (negative liberty, state inaction), which dictates the organizational framework — the model for our institutions (primacy of the individual) — that in turn produces the operational framework (private and individual action). You can read more about the concept of the interpretative, organizational, and operational framework model of human political action here.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
The urge to counsel breeding is an attempt to solve a biological — or more precisely, ecobiological — problem through biological means. Indeed, making more white babies is a way of solving the demographic crisis. However, it is also one which is very unlikely to work due to some oft-ignored facts about white and non-white reproductive strategies. White people are indeed having fewer children than we did before, but even at our peak reproductive levels we were still having fewer children per woman than the average non-white. We also had a later average marriage age, thus lengthening our generations. White people are strongly K-selected, meaning we have fewer offspring and invest heavily in them. Non-whites in general are to varying degrees r-selected, which is to say favoring more offspring with less parental investment in them. This is the first fact.
The second fact is that Western states are subsidizing non-white reproduction and punishing white reproduction by disproportionately taxing and prosecuting white people while paying social transfers — welfare, food aid, medical aid, free housing, etc. to non-whites — and allowing non-white criminality to augment their incomes. The destabilizing economies in the West also work against white fertility, since the K-selected white people are unsure they can invest highly into their children in precarious economic conditions, whereas they don’t faze the r-selected non-whites — who breed like rabbits come hell or high water.
But since society is a biological phenomenon and human biology is a social phenomenon, and given that the one merges into the other like the two halves of a peach, each human biological problem has a social solution. The reality is that the West’s demographic crisis can be solved without any changes to the white birthrate merely by closing the borders to non-whites and expelling those already in white countries. This is a political solution which requires that White Nationalists seize control of the state and use its power to enforce our vision of the white ethnostate.
This is of course a tall order, but it is less unlikely than raising white birthrates to the levels necessary to outbreed non-whites, and the beauty of it is that it can be implemented at any stage of the replacement process. A state whose population is only 30% white can still be taken over by White Nationalists and gradually expel non-whites until it is 100% white. However, a state where whites are 90% of the population and breeding at a rate of 1.8 children per woman, while the non-white population breeds at a rate of 3.4 children per woman, and where there is mass non-white immigration every year, is still doomed to become majority non-white even if the White Nationalists within it counsel fighting the rising tide of color merely with increased reproduction rather than with political power. The invasive non-whites must be expelled from the country — the biome, if you will — if the native population is to recover and survive.
Being aware of differences between races in terms of biological parameters such as IQ, skull size, reproductive strategies, and so on is not enough. One must also take into account the effect which state policy has on the evolution of a people. At some point in the distant past of civilized nations, state policy became the preeminent Darwinian selection pressure acting on the human genome, rising above the weather and other creatures in deciding whether a given genetic line would continue or end. At the time of writing, state policy in the West favors compliance, low IQ, impulsivity, and criminality, as well as those belonging to any of the non-white races. Independence, intelligence, self-restraint, lawfulness, and whiteness are punished by state policy in their reproductive aspect. Aside from the demographic displacement of whites from their ancestral homelands, this will also lead to a dumbing-down of society — the beginnings of which we’re already starting to observe. This dumbing-down can be mitigated by expelling all non-whites from white countries, as this would raise the average IQ, but the state must also take action to ensure the reproduction of intelligent, independent-minded, lawful, and conscientious people.
This is what was traditionally known as eugenics — but again, an explicit eugenics program is a direct solution which is likely to fail due to a combination of the human heart’s fickleness and uncertainty of what “eu” (good) really is or could be at any point in the future. All we can really know is the human phenotype, whereas the genes and their expressions in the world of men are and are likely to remain a mystery. What is dysfunctional in one age is invaluable in another, and we breed this “dysfunction” out of ourselves at our peril.
What is necessary is subtle societal intervention — not in the choosing of individuals to breed or genes to proliferate (even the smartest among us are too dumb to make that choice), but rather in creating conditions where excellence is rewarded; or in other words, constructing a framework in which an intelligent, lawful, conscientious man will be more highly valued, in terms both economic and sexual, than an unintelligent, criminal, and inconstant man. Equally counterproductive to the goal of ensuring the reproduction of the best is the approach of calling on high-IQ, conscientious, and lawful men to learn the tricks of the pick-up artist, sometimes known as game. It requires that the man wear another personality over his true character as a mask. It may be a personal solution which some men can implement to attain female companionship, but it is not a scalable solution. High-IQ men should concern themselves with other, better things than learning psychological tricks with which to woo women. What’s necessary is constructing conditions under which those men, without any special training, can find wives for themselves. Conditions under which high-IQ, lawful, and conscientious men are preferred to low-IQ, criminal, and inconstant men are historically rare and fragile, requiring a massive, society-wide constraint on female hypergamy we sometimes call “the patriarchy.” But such a societal framework must be constructed and implemented if we are to succeed in heading off the mass dumbing-down of society, even among whites.
Our worldview owes a lot to biology, and our policy recommendations must reflect biological insights. We are Darwinians, we are racial identitarians, and we are White Nationalists. Our political formula depends on demarcating political lines along the already existing divisions between man’s biological categories. We must also understand that society is an aspect of our biology, as much a part of our bodies as any other organ, and we are as much part of it as the organs are of the body. We cannot be considered physically and mentally healthy until we live in a healthy society.
We are strange mammals, incomplete and without axis mundi, our brains being so evolved and our bodies so dependent on other men that we’ve lost the ability to exist as individuals or even as isolated families. Individual approaches may work locally, but they are spray-and-pray. The only certain and lasting solutions to our problems can come from organized collective action in the construction of functional frameworks for the society we want to manifest.
* * *
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.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
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.
17 comments
High quality chatacter is multiplied by curated custom, whereas going all-in on an instance creates a *cultural-*genetic bottleneck.
Darwin being more applicable to husbandry than specie-divergences is not the take I was expecting.
*…*: Edit
They’re the same thing. The difference is in our minds – species are a concept developed by scientists to categorize and account for different life forms, but the material difference is chiefly between the genomes of individuals and tribes.
I understand that about species, I didn’t emphasis the correct aspect. Maybe Darwin didn’t either.
At the time, I wasn’t sure how to concisely phrase “directed by external will of intent” vs “emergence by compounded habitat decision,” or Method vs Struggle, if you will.
“We use comparisons to animals as insults in all European languages”
Medieval demons in art are often animal-like or have animal features. Atavism is a throwback phenotype often caused by mutated DNA which undoes evolution in a particular area. For example, some people are born with tails. The implication from medieval artwork is people with retrograde traits are mutated and evil. Mutations are bad since 80% of them are no more than 5,000 years old, suggesting they’re continually phased out of the genome. Aesthetic intuition tells you the same thing.
“creating conditions where excellence is rewarded; or in other words, constructing a framework in which an intelligent, lawful, conscientious man will be more highly valued”
Species which evolve too fast and capitalize too well on a niche environment tend to die out faster than ones which don’t evolve so fast. A super accelerated example is people “evolved” to join the gender reassignment craze because they die out instantly if they compromise themselves reproductively, but on a long-term basis traits coevolved with cold weather agriculture not applicable to modern times are probably dying out too. Probably intelligence, intergenerational planning, virtue, and sustained behaviors in spite of variable conditions may all be declining in the concrete jungle of modern life. Sociability, playing the game, virtue signaling, symbolic displays, and possibly psychopathy are on the rise–at least culturally. We create so many environments which contribute to status allocation based on non-social human abilities, but I suspect they are functioning as genetic sinkholes and a primitive core will remain based on this sociability.
Aryans cut down forests when entering Europe to make the land amenable to their pastoralist culture. How do you create a culture conducive to saving whatever benefits we have from cold weather agriculture?
There are probably coevolved niche clusters of species which may all die out together. Like an animal which feeds on a particular tree in a particular region subject to climatic changes distanced but abrupt enough to cause speciation. To see this in a human social context, search occupations and traits correlated with lower than average birthrates to recreate the cold weather agriculture niche traits and then form a society conducive to their preservation–without going full Amish.
“Trannies could be here, he thought. “I’ve written articles on this website before. Trannies could be commenting anywhere.” Sidetracking the discussion of policy towards evopsyche felt good for his author ego. “I hate trannies” he thought. Neutral Milk Hotel reverberated through his entire desktop PC, making it pulsate even as the $9 wine circulated through his veins and washed away his (merited) fear of trannies deconstructing his carefully assembled novelty takes. “With any internet connection, you can comment on any article you want” he said to himself, out loud.
Is you neurotic post supposed to convince people of trans sanity?
As the driving rain pattered on the imposing window panes of his glorious study, he stared off into the dark stormy night beyond, muttering unintellible nothings into the void. After the hour had fulfilled within his five minutes of ruminating, he began to settle on one phrase: We must preserve our precious bodily fluids; We must preserve…
The shock of the truth pulled him back into reality by his face, contorting it into a mad epiphany; he thrust himself upright, rebuking his library chair an impressive distance straight into the fireplace sofa behind him, and he shouted:
“MY GOD, I AM THE TRANNY!”
That whooshing isn’t the wind in the dark stormy night of your narrative but the sound of the reference and point going over your head.
The only thing I hear is: Mi Mi Mi!
I am far from convinced that an absolute patriarchy is eugenic: just look at the Islamic world. Its great rival, medieval Christendom allowed women the greater freedom while enforcing monogamy. Is it not the decline of the latter in favour of selfish libertinism and irresponsibility which has been our undoing? Who or what encourages the abandonment of pietas for the pursuit of a shallow ‘self-actualisation’ that is no more than self-indulgence? Is it capitalism, or (as some here make the case) something more sinister?
Islam treats women as beasts to be bound, its patriarchal constraints being contained the law. The Wests treats women as moral actors, capable of virtue and sin, and its patriarchal bounds are contained within the conscience of the woman. When we look at the effects, the West was in practice far more patriarchal.
This is also the case in these worlds treatment of men’s behavior. Islam prefers codifying behavioral mores into law and enforcing them at gunpoint. The West develops moral rules and relies on men’s guilt to enforce them, using the law to simply prune those who refuse to self-police their behavior. In this sense, even though we’re the more permissive society, we’re more orderly because our system is more efficient.
@Nick Jeelvy
Islam treats women as beasts to be bound, its patriarchal constraints being contained the law.
And to do what with them once they are “bounded”? What is expected of them?
Islam is not a set of deliberations emanating from a gathering of heavily robed and carbuncled tribal elders.
It is a particular description of Man [as in mankind; both man and woman]. It is neither patriarchy nor matriarchy as both signal towards a specific arrangement of local resource management.
Man and woman are commanded collectively. Both are directed to have modesty and respect in their respective demeanor when they encounter each other.
And, of course, since a human comes into being in a community, both man and woman have certain roles to play if they desire social-communitarian equilibrium and health and prosperity for their races and ethnicities.
Both are individuals in front of the Most Exalted Almighty.
However, among themselves they are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives.
Islam sees woman as a receiver, container. protector, and nourisher of seed. She is a guarantee that a folk/race/ethnicity will have a future, and that there will be an honorable generation that would uphold the Divine Order of things.
Islam prefers codifying behavioral mores into law and enforcing them at gunpoint.
Whose “behavioral mores”? Who holds the gun?
Are these Arabic mores?
Why would self-respecting non-Arabs worship and accommodate Arabic tribal mores?
Respect for elders, respect for parents, protection of bloodlines from evil through marriage between the ones with fine character, mercy and care for children to prepare them as morally upright inheritors of their honorable ancestors, etc. are principles that can find adherents among every race of Man.
Finally, it was my late father’s [May Allah’s mercy be on his soul] gentlemanly behavior and devotion towards my mother and brotherly affection and respect for his sisters that taught me how to interact with women in real life. It was his taking care of his dying mother [my late grandmother] that taught me what my conduct should be towards my own mother.
This is how Islam wants men to treat women.
Regards
That’s all good thinking on where we are going.
When we think about the struggle to get where we need to go as a race, we should bear this in mind:
“Aside from the demographic displacement of whites from their ancestral homelands, this will also lead to a dumbing-down of society — the beginnings of which we’re already starting to observe. ”
We are in the beginning of a great simplification in which many clever arguments and clever social arrangements will fail because a dumbed-down population, and a dumbed-down culture that will affect even the unusually intelligent, will mean that too many people will not follow the arguments or the necessary social rules.
We should respect crude propaganda, as long as it urges Whites in broadly pro-White directions, because the great simplification will increase its value. We should expect high-level pro-White thinkers to speak in painstakingly accessible terms (as Greg Johnson does), because that is the only kind of high-level speech that will be heard, even by the intelligent.
We should put little faith in social solutions that require Whites to live cheek-by-jowl with non-Whites while exercising intelligence, restraint, and wisdom. Arrangements like that will break down more quickly than they used to.
Hunter S. Thompson said, ‘Politics is controlling your environment’.
For some time now, as human beings have succeeded in anthropoforming the planet, human beings have become their own source of environmental pressure.
Politics is controlling our environment to create the conditions for our (White) interests to express themselves most readily.
Whites can never outbreed the entire world. We were only ever a minority and its not clear that will ever change (never say never).
On the other hand…
https://imperiumpress.substack.com/p/the-third-world-is-going-to-cop-it-b9e
Why did you link to that substack essay? For reasons I just don’t have time or esp energy to expound, I found it both interesting and absurd. But what did you see in it as worthy of CC readers’ time (I’m wondering if I missed something)? The author is deeply incorrect, but I have long thought that the West should pursue a “Mithridates Strategy” (good name, never thought of it like that). My version was cruder: “US policy should seek to export Sexual Revolutionist liberalism {esp feminism and LGBTQ, and most directly, prophylactics} to the Third World as a way of reducing their over-fecundity”. The substack author seems to think this is a bad thing (?!). Hardly! We’re living on a shrinking planet (ie, in the Population vs Environment, Anthropocenic sense), and white fertility has already catastrophically collapsed – and this at a time when we are already much less numerous in absolute terms than other races (and note: in 1900 it is believed there were, eg, far more whites than blacks). My thought was that if we’ve had to suffer from, eg, feminism, why shouldn’t we seek to export this self-destructive, anti-fertility plague to our racial competitors cum enemies (esp among Muslima and Africans)? And this would also be good from the perspective of universal (Christian) morality, insofar as mankind is heading towards a population-ecological overshoot and hard crash, which will entail untold future suffering. Anything short of extermination which reduces low-IQ populations can be argued to be a good thing (again, from within Christian theology: I don’t believe in ethics apart from God {are there “insect ethics”?); and, absent God, I don’t believe in even apparent inter-racial ethics; without God, ethics can at best be premised on genetic relatedness concerns and inhibitions, which would preclude any concern for those outside our race).
To say the author is ‘incorrect’ isn’t enough. The ‘White people are going extinct’ trope is bandied around in these circles all the time but every time I go looking for evidence, I don’t find it. Usually, I find that Whites are only slightly less fecund than their Darkie cohorts. As for exporting perversion to the rest of the world for demographic purposes while we suppress the same in our (future) homelands, that requires what can only be described as chutzpah. It would not be my first choice for dealing with other races.
As for the environmental issues you raise, it seems to me that a spontaneously-reduced birth-rate (replacement rate) might represent some kind of built-in check on human numbers and, therefore, ultimately beneficial to the planet in the long run. This is especially true if every race on every continent begins exhibiting the same behavior. Which is what some data suggests might be happening.
On another note entirely, did I read that you are not behind the paywall?
I believe whites are headed to extinction if we do nothing (ie, we will prevent extinction only via conscious acts of political and racial will). The combination of white genetic recessiveness + Great Replacement immigration imperialism + the removal of laws and customs against miscegenation + below replacement TFRs in every white nation = extinction.
The purpose of socially infecting other races with Sexual Revolutionism is so they will suffer population declines similar to what we already have – because right now, they outnumber us by many orders of magnitude, and that differential in absolute numbers is growing (however much the differential in inter-racial birthrates may be, slightly, lessening).
I also think the author you linked to is totally incorrect wrt African fertility, whose continental population is, absent “Acts of God”, projected to hit 4 billion by 2100, a likely scenario given the relative youthfulness of the overall African population (ie, even if reproductive mores there are changing in an anti-natalist direction, the trend in absolute numbers for most of the rest of this century is already set).
I’m not sure what you “read”, but I’m not behind the paywall, as the lack of an INSIDER green tag next to my screen name indicates.
If you have Paywall 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.