Monday, July 24, 2017

In discordance to Nature and towards a secular theocracy

Heartiste, rhetorically fleshing out the unnaturalness of "the totalitarian impulse of your garden variety social scientist femme", in the context of a recent study showing that putatively liberal, open-minded college students tend to react to interracial couples with disgust:
Why do people have to be taught/whipped/lobotomized to stop feeling disgust for interracial couples? Why is that the immediate assumption, instead of the saner and more humane reaction that we shouldn’t force people to deny their true feelings which have been a part of the human emotional template since time immemorial?

Disgust obviously serves a useful purpose if evolution has seen fit to keep us equipped with its powerful instinctual leverage over our real world mating decisions. Just spitballing here, but maybe we feel disgust at the sight of interracial couples because we crave aesthetic continuity, cultural familiarity, and social connectedness, and all these things which bring us closer to the heart have as their provenance the pairing of similar genes, which we perceive through the proxy of race?
To assert that the aversion to miscegenation is some sort of social construct rather than an innate biological reaction is to be, as the the cultMarx left has increasingly become, "anti-science".

The following graph shows the percentages of Americans, by generational cohort, who favor a legal ban on interracial marriage:

Advocating the legal prohibition of a thing goes beyond having a personal predilection against it, but the generational sea change in professed opinion is undeniable.

We see the same thing with regards to the celebration of Diversity!. Most people avoid it like the plague, those who sing paeans to it nearly as much as those who do not. Without perpetual religious mantras favoring and legal coercion forcing Diversity!, segregation rather naturally and easily occurs.

Our grandparents were the ones who lived in accordance to Nature. We're the religious ones, well on our way to a secular theocracy.

As Pax Dickinson recently put it:
I view leftism as mainline Puritanism, mainline Protestantism. It's a holiness spiral to the point where they start saying they are holier than God, so then they get rid of God. It's still a religion, it just doesn't have God anymore.
GSS variables used: RACMAR, COHORT(1900-1924)(1925-1945)(1946-1964)(1965-1976)(1977-1995)


Feryl said...

Over at Sailer's, somebody posted some Wowzer stats about America's African population going up by like 3000% since 1980. Yeeesh. The overall US pop. went up by like 36% (!). We gained 1/3 more population in the span of a couple generations. I can't imagine why it's harder to find work or a decent house these days.

We really got no right to criticize Europe. As I recall, all of England's larger cities were majority white until a few years ago. US whites lost NYC and L.A. by the 90's, and in the 60's and 70's whites were chased out of many Eastern cities by blacks. And considering how many Middle Earthers are erroneously lumped in with Euro-Americans by our wonderfully broken census, it's fair to say that the situation is even worse than it looks on paper, given how many people from N. Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia have come to the US over the last 50 years.

Also, at least Europe gave priority to former colonies (before the Soros/Merkel Muslim mob), whereas in the US we rewrote our immigration laws to make virtually no distinction between ethnic/national origin and eligibility to come here. It's comically easy for anyone to get into the US and get full citizenship. Failing that, they can stay here illegally without much difficulty or get one of many quasi citizen or "legal" resident classifications. Trump's right hand men were supposed to clarify and crack down on a lot of this BS and diversity worship, but after a few months of thwarted reform efforts, they've gotten bogged down in the courts and the GOP elite are mostly not doing a damn thing to help us out.

Jim Bowery said...

The countries that are sending all those military aged men to European derived countries to fuck our women and take our lands are going to have their territories seized, their leadership eliminated and border controls established so there is somewhere to send what's left of the shitlibs, effete elites and those military aged men and the children they've sired -- what's left of them after the necessary action has been taken.

chris said...

And in the Soviet Union citizens praised the superiority of the planned economy and the common ownership of the means of production all the while in secret ferreting away what little money they had for use on the black market.

Audacious Epigone said...


If Trump's not a fraud (or merely an opportunistic signaler) on this front, he has to start really calling people out. We'll see if he works to primary anyone.

Agnostic assumes that Trump's being forcefully hemmed in and would do these things if he could, but that seems silly to me.

It's painful at first blush to see him going after Sessions, but why the hell is the head of the justice department stepping aside so the Russian nonsense can carry on indefinitely. It's war, Jeff--time to fight to win.

Anonymous said...

That is a fantasy Jim Bowery. Whites will go out with a whimper not a bang.

Feryl said...

Trump's accustomed to slugging it out in the arena of NY Real Estate. Sincerely, how the hell does that not prepare you for taking on modern Silent/Boomer politicians many of whom have not faced a real fight in decades (the media/party machinery colludes to protect it's greatest servants). The initial travel ban chaos, the court challenges, the backstabbing, the non-stop media treason, the bogus scandal investigations, have piled on top of Trump and his few allies.

Maybe he's getting to the F it stage; I said just a few days ago that maybe he's just not the type to kamikaze in desperation, being too strategically cautious and willing to negotiate. But the leash (noose?) on Trump keeps getting tightened in the absence of effective resistance. Outside of trade, even his own party (to say nothing of the Dems) by and large doesn't even want to negotiate with Trump, let alone implement what non-elite normal Americans clearly want (isolationism, protectionism, demog. security).

One thing I find unsettling is that, per Agnostic, around May Trump became less willing to distinguish between GOP friends Vs foes. I never hear about Dave Brat, who was kind of a dry run for Trump (political outsider beats established insider opponent and nobody sees it coming). I don't have a clue how Brat feels about Trump and his agenda; is that because Brat is still on the outs with the MSM and the party for being an interloper? Even in swell late 90's Minnesota, the media never forgave Jesse Ventura for jobbing the duopoly out of a governorship. This was well before Ventura went off into cukooland after 9/11, and Ventura had some great ideas focused on reform; as usual, those who threaten the system are cast as villains regardless of their character.

Feryl said...

Clarification: Trump stopped publically identifying and supporting Trumpian GOP candidates over cuck establishment ones. Obviously, he knows what's going on and which people are better for him.

BTW, remember how Trump went through, what, 3 different campaign managers? Who's to say he won't get restless with anyone in his orbit, should they not meet expectations? He's intuitive and he improvises; what good does "loyalty" do you when the other party isn't carrying the weight they were supposed to? Trump isn't neurotically rigid and focused on putting every hair in place. He's just gonna do what seems to be right at the moment.

Anonymous said...

AE - the is no constant in nature. This is like one of our monkey ancestors not attempting to walk upright because they thought it was against nature. The only reason there are separate races is the difficulty in travel between continents, and the different conditions in those continents before the modern era.

As there are more an more interracial marriages, the issue of tolerance for difference has become much more personal for people. When you attack these relationships, you are attacking large numbers of people personally. That is why you get such an angry response.

By the way, the idea that multi-racial relationships are against nature is laughable given that humans interbred with neanderthals. Race is essentially a correlation in frequency of genes between groups ~15%. Humans and Neanderthals had large numbers of different genes.

Audacious Epigone said...


He has to use the hell out of the social media bully pulpit. 2018 will be a test. There should be a Trump voter guide for the mid-terms, and it shouldn't be afraid to be bipartisan. Stephen Miller should start working on it yesterday and have it ready to go in a year. There are milliions of people who voted in 2016 for Trump who won't plan on voting in 2018--unless they're given the impetus to. And they have the potential to wreak havoc on a lot of house members if rallied effectively.


are against nature is laughable

By this logic, bestiality isn't against nature, either, as people have done it from time immemorial. "Nature" in this context is a reference to the way the Stoics--and specifically Marcus Aurelius--understood it.

Despite the zeitgeist pushing it everywhere and on everyone, it's not modal, not even close. And that's in the West. It's even less common outside of the West.

Justin Garcia, who runs the Pressure Project podcast, has an interesting take on interracial relationships. He's the product of one and is also against them. There was an episode when he recounted confronting his parents about it.

Anonymous said...

I doubt black dudes get disgusted by seeing black dudes with white chicks. Men get disgusted by seeing women of their race and background with men from another race, as those men are competition for their women. I don't think it has to do with aesthetic continuity, cultural familiarity, social connectedness, etc. Few men are not going to mate with a woman because of those things. It's more fundamental. Seeing men of another race with women of your own race indicates that there's increased competition for your women and that there are lower chances for reproductive success.

Do you suppose it's the zeitgeist that causes black dudes to pursue and screw white chicks? That's like saying it's a social construct and that it only happens because of the socially constructed zeitgeist, which seems highly doubtful. That's why there was segregation, Jim Crow, lynchings, anti-miscegenation laws, etc. before the zeitgeist, because it wasn't a social construct and miscegenation would happen and black dudes would pursue white chicks unless stopped through social constructs such as the law, social morals, peer pressure, and violence.

Audacious Epigone said...


Doubt it. Think you're correct that it runs deeper than that. The BM/WF is 3x as common as WM/BF, and WM/AF is 3x as common as AM/WF. That's more than just contemporary cultural preference, I suspect.

Anonymous said...

AE - this would eventually cause speciation. We wouldn't like that.

As to what Marcus Aurelius thought about marriage and what was in concordance with nature, given his marriage to his first cousin and oversight of the persecution of Christians, I'm not really interested in what he thought on either topic.

If I returned to Legate Manner and found that one of the staff had managed to restrain and take liberties with one of the hounds, I would not inform the police that I had returned to encounter a suboptimal or non-modal situation. Nor would I expect the creation of human / dog hybrids.

Audacious Epigone said...


Or it would never cause anything, like homosexuality.

Regarding Aurelius, I'm not particularly interested in projecting contemporary morality back 1900 years when mining for nuggets of wisdom.

Anonymous said...

AE - "Regarding Aurelius, I'm not particularly interested in projecting contemporary morality back 1900 years when mining for nuggets of wisdom." The causes of the decline and fall the Roman Empire are very relevant in preventing the decline and fall of the modern American Empire. There is a direct link between the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and its fall. I highly recommend that you read day of empire. It follows the history of all of humanities empires and shows the parallels of their collapses. This is a common theme. This is about survival, morality and survival are linked. (i.e. Only a virtuous people can live in a free society)

"Or it would never cause anything, like homosexuality." - If I wasn't clear, I was referring avoiding interracial marriage, over 50,000 years of isolation caused by distance it caused 10 - 15% correlation in frequency of gene occurrence among isolated groups. Its hard to imagine it would stop having this effect if it continued. Of course, it has ended.

By the way, homosexuality didn't used to inhibit fertility. There were lots of very sad stories about women finding out their husbands were gay after getting married and having children. I prefer that this no longer happens.

Anonymous said...


Your last paragraph is why I support same-sex marriage. For entirely selfish reasons. I'm straight, and the last thing I want is for gay men to con straight women into marriage just so they can have social prestige. And these things happen to straight men too. There have definitely been some lesbian women in the past who deliberately conned straight men into marriage just so they can have the social prestige of being "straight" and married.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - when you are older, simply retain the same attitude and your selfish desire will become a virtuous one. Up until maybe the 1970s, being seen as gay was really damaging. There were lawsuits for libel over such acquisitions and insinuations. Sodomy was illegal in the United States and United Kingdom until in the early 1960s. There was probably nothing more humiliating for a young mother that for her husband to be convicted of sodomy.