Sociobiological Problem-Solving

Posted By Nicholas R. Jeelvy On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled

[1]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 [2]. 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 [3].

[4]

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here [5]

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 [6], 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 [7].” 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.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

[9]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:

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.