Most people, both laymen and scientists alike, envision the process of evolution as a struggle for fitness relative to the environment. Charles Darwin identified a type of selection in addition to natural selection: sexual selection. He recognized that not only must organisms survive, they must also mate. When possible, males will maximize their reproductive success by mating with multiple females, thereby multiplying their output. When possible, females will maximize their reproductive success by mating with the most successful males, sometimes relying on cuckolding to optimize both fitness and support.
Sexual selection can take place in different ways in different contexts, with a common one being male territorial aggression. Many of the more fearsome horns, tusks, antlers, and fangs are selected for use against other males of the same species in competition for females. Race conditions emerge, with bucks evolving ever larger and more powerful antlers to assure reproductive success. Environmental selection favors bucks which don’t get caught in branches while running and don’t waste precious energy and nutrients on antlers, but it’s evident that the sexually selective pressure outweighed the environmentally selective pressure in their case.
Consider, as a thought exercise, what this condition would portend for paleolithic humans. If they were selected for success in combat, what would that selection be? Human males design tools to attack one another, so they would evolve more effective tools. But tools aren’t body parts like fangs or antlers. They’re products of creative thinking. Humans would be pitted in a race condition for increasingly innovative males. They wouldn’t get smart relative to any environmental factor, but relative to each other, with each generation producing more intelligent humans than the last.
They would weaponize their brains.
If male territorial aggression were pervasive, there would be an acute gender imbalance, with the most aggressive tribes having high death rates among their own warriors. They would also capture female captives of defeated tribes. Polygyny would probably become common, with gifted warlords acquiring harems of the most attractive females as concubines. The offspring of these pairings would be selected for increased intelligence AND attractiveness, and little else. Environmental fitness would decline, with the tribe becoming more intelligent but more feminized and less environmentally fit.
As the peacock demonstrates, sexual selection for appearance can result in some pretty dramatic effects. While environmental selection tends to favor camouflage, sexual selection tends to favor the opposite. With each successive generation, the humans (both male and female) would look more and more like fertile youthful females, with lighter skin, lighter hair, and more expressive eyes, maybe even with exotic colors like blue or green. Females would take on an ornamental appearance, converging on the archetype of aesthetic beauty embedded in male primates.
The primary purpose of the increasing intelligence would be to design strategies and weapons of aggression, but increasing intelligence to this degree would have side-effects. This intelligence could end up being used to design ways to more efficiently exploit the environment, which would only serve to increase population density and reduce environmental selection…exacerbating the sexually selective pressure. At some point, this would have to give, with these highly intelligent, highly aggressive, and brightly colored monkeys creating synthetic habitats for themselves, designing weapons powerful enough to literally explode the planet, and even propeling themselves onto the moon.
An Illustrative Demo
In this demo, males and females have only two attributes, “brains” and “looks”. In each generation, the male with the most brains becomes a warlord, acquiring the two females with the best looks. The male with the second most brains marries the female with the third most looks and the male with the third most brains marries the female with the fourth most looks. The male with the least brains dies in battle.
There are two offspring of each pairing, a male and a female. So the population remains constant at eight individuals in each generation. The brains and looks of the offspring are simple averages of the brains and looks of the parents, with a small mutative effect that both simulates mutations and relieves a programmatic problem arising from the ties which arise without them.
The screenshot shown above demonstrates the cumulative effect, with the brains and looks of the population increasing with each generation. It does not serve as a proof, but it does serve as a way to visually demonstrate what can be difficult to convey with text or speech alone. If you’re interested in HBD or sharp with Excel, you may wish to review the small worksheet which begins with random values for the individuals then sorts them according to the aforementioned algorithm.
This hypothesis, which I refer to as the Military Selection Hypothesis, is an alternative to the prevailing hypothesis that the White race’s features are the product of selection for survival in the Arctic tundra. I’m working on an attempt to put this hypothesis in a format worthy of peer review and serious scholarly consideration, which is a bit of a challenge for a layman. Perhaps some of you have some insights that could help me write a better paper or even drop this radical hypothesis altogether.
Norwegians have been dairy farmers for 4000 years if modern archeology is correct, and have lived in nuclear families for the same timespan. Just living in a nuclear family, can better explain why whites show their evolutionary peculiarities. For instance an introverted personality works better where you don’t have a large family where your greatest competitor is your cousin. Same goes for dominating people, where a neighbour would just choose to help the cooperative neighbour, rather than the ones who tried to dominate them all the time.
The most successfull ones is not meassurable on one dimention only though, as what we see in N-european history, is that good farmers, craftsmen and tradesmen get rich enough to have many children as well, in addition to the good soldiers or the ones who are good to dominate in other ways.
If you want a civilisation, you don’t really want just the ones who are good at fighting or dominating to be the winners, like what seems to be the case with the arabs.
Volk,
I don’t believe that the dairy farming is necessarily incompatible with pervasive militarism. In fact, the caloric efficiency which comes with lactose-tolerance would empower a population to displace lactose-intolerant populations. You’re correct that this one dimension is insufficient and that the model is innately flawed in that regard. I intend it as an illustrative simplification and appreciate that there are complicating variables – such as lactose-tolerance.
Arabs aren’t especially good at fighting, even relying on kidnapped White children (Janissaries) to augment their military prowess. I assert that Whites, more than any other population, excel at leadership and military pursuits. The problem for us, in a nutshell, is that Jews, Mandarins, and Brahmins are superior at management, having been both genetically and culturally adapted over millennia to excel at managing grain surpluses, trade networks, and the logistical issues therein.
We’re more innovative and imaginative, but lack the patience and attentiveness of the existing managerial castes. Relative to them, we as a people suffer from attention-deficit disorder and this vulnerability is exploited time and again. Jews who excelled at reading Talmudic discourse and patiently applying usury need to merely make things too boring and byzantine for the gentile and he hands over his civilization without a fight.
it can not explain evolution of whites only as there is no factor here that is unique for whites. the same factors – military and polygyny are present in africa and in the north, so there is no different selection driving force to lead to evolution of better brains and looks. warfare and polygyny is even more prevalent in africa so according to your hypothesis it is negroes who should have gotten better traits
You are on the right track in more ways than one, Wikitopian. You are doing anthropology. You should read some basic books on the techniques of studying kinship and customs,. anthro 101 type books, and maybe some advanced stuff. It will give you great ideas. Did you know that the US military now hires anthropologists:
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:lyUbpd6n0MIJ:www.usna.edu/Ethics/Publications/Ethics%2520and%2520Military%2520Anthropology%2520Case%2520WesternUniv%252029%2520March%25202009.pdf+critical+military+anthropologists+study&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/ethics/2008-12-08-anthropologists-soldiers_N.htm
Anthropology, military go way back
Ties between anthropology and the military are old ones. The science originated as a “tool of colonialism” in the 19th century to understand British Empire subjects, says historian David Kaiser of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, field anthropologists study culture, kinship and networks in societies, “particularly key” factors in the insurgencies, according to the Army’s counterinsurgency manual. For example, in these countries it is considered reasonable to put family ties above the needs of society, and nepotism is seen as positive, not negative. That’s something young soldiers raised in the USA, with our veneration of the rugged individualist, may not immediately understand.
Comment #2 hits the nail on the head as well. It’s funny, I was up late last night studying firewalls and computer security last night and had a thought, “Damn, this is boring,” but ya know, I gotta do it, because I know damn well there’s some Indian hoping for an H1B visa studying firewalls. There’s some Israeli studying firewalls, somewhere. I have to compete for this very rarefied niche to make myself more evolutionarily fit in hard environment of 21st century globalism.
Jews who excelled at reading Talmudic discourse and patiently applying usury need to merely make things too boring and byzantine for the gentile and he hands over his civilization without a fight.
Creative financial instruments. That reminds me of the EAU policy toward Jews. European-Americans United does not believe in “naming the Jew” or attacking Jews as Jews, but rather they are in favor of crafting laws to favor the productive, and imposing very strict financial regulation and very harsh sentences for financial fraud. So the ordinary Jewish delicatessen owner has nothing to worry about, his taxes would probably go down if EAU ran the country, but Lloyd Blankfein and Robert Rubin would and the like would be harshly prosecuted, and Goldman Sachs would be seized. Just the fact that GS sold securities that it was shorting is enough reason to prosecute them and end the existence of the company. Also, EAU would do major tort reform and legal reform so that lawyering wouldn’t be such a growth industry. If you read Alan Dershowitz’s book “Chutzpah” he talks about how Jews turned lawyering into a growth industry. The WASPs considered law a “necessary evil” and purposely restrained it. When the Jews got into it heavily in the 50’s, they “transformed” the practice of law into the monster we now know, according to Dershowitz.
So basically, we need to reform the laws to favor the productive (us), rather than the clever cheats and shysters. But that ain’t going to happen any time soon, so we have to turn ourselves and our progeny into Mind-Weapons and get our regime change on! Yee ha!
By the way, I thought of the name of the future WN home-school, “Napoleon’s Pups.”
Arabs aren’t especially good at fighting, even relying on kidnapped White children (Janissaries) to augment their military prowess. I assert that Whites, more than any other population, excel at leadership and military pursuits. The problem for us, in a nutshell, is that Jews, Mandarins, and Brahmins are superior at management, having been both genetically and culturally adapted over millennia to excel at managing grain surpluses, trade networks, and the logistical issues therein.
We’re more innovative and imaginative, but lack the patience and attentiveness of the existing managerial castes. Relative to them, we as a people suffer from attention-deficit disorder and this vulnerability is exploited time and again. Jews who excelled at reading Talmudic discourse and patiently applying usury need to merely make things too boring and byzantine for the gentile and he hands over his civilization without a fight.
Nicely summarized.
@ 2 and 3
I think you guys are confusing Arabs with Turks (central Asians). The Janissaries were a Turk inovation.
Tom,
You’re correct. I did speak too broadly, though I believe the same critique applies to Berbers, Arabs, Turks, Eskimos, and Amerindians alike.
That’s the passive half. The actively aggressive half includes scathing, unceasing, hypocritical attacks on “racism” and “hate”, while swarming all over any White who offers a fight.
My own thoughts on the idea of natural selection is that we’ve entered an evolutionary period marked by “conflicting extremes.” Individual intelligence has very little to do with the ability to feed oneself or care for one’s family anymore. The dysgenic scum procreate and simply leave it to the rest of society to care for their offspring. On the other hand, you have affluent people of above-average intelligence who choose to focus on a career and have very few, if any, children. These two groups are responsible for the past 100 years of dysgenics.
What we have yet to see is the emergence of a third group – what Charles Murray calls “the cognitive elite.” This will be a group of highly intelligent and wealthy people who purposely focus on expanding and improving their gene pool. This would represent the ultimate “mind weaponization.” The scum of the earth and the new ‘elite’ are the ‘conflicting extremes’. It would probably take some kind of racial dictatorship to bring about this new elite, and we know how the Jews would respond to that…
Tanstaafl,
To some extent, you have to recognize that as opportunistic. Imagine a race of men who sit atop the riches of the world and hold the levers of global domination, yet scatter like cockroaches at the first whiff of status anxiety. The problem isn’t with alien elites competing by means of aggressive discourse.
It’s like blaming White people for fire water. There’s some truth in it, but a population ultimately has to evolve (culturally or genetically) a response to a survival threat or consign itself to history’s dust bin.
Sam,
You’re correct, but you’re about 6,000 years behind the ball. The cognitive elite isn’t a new phenomenon, but one as old as civilization itself. We Westerners often fail to realize that we’re late entrants to a very old game. Places like India, the Middle East, and North Africa have gifted managerial castes with extremely old and well-tuned traditions feeding off of a lobotomized mass of hominid livestock.
That’s what civilization is. We White Westerners tend to mistake that early phase of transitioning from militaristic nomads to the civilizational habitat to be the essence of civilization when it’s merely an unstable transitional period. As I suggest in my essay above, the only way that humanity actually progresses is through military selection, something which is only occurring in Africa at the moment.
“I don’t believe that the dairy farming is necessarily incompatible with pervasive militarism.”
Me neihter, but I think it excludes a high agressive level, since your family lived with the same neighbours for generations, while it really selects for people who feel empathy and pitty for their animals, at least the way it was practiced up north, where they needed to spend the summer getting feed for the animals, while they buildt houses for them in the winter and took them for walks.
What you also see with dairy farming is improvement of the earth and the fields over the generations, meaning that the ones that have been used for 4000 years are the best today. Since the germanic inheritance laws are older than the roman empire, you also have a posibility that you could evolve empathy with the land, as it was your direct decendantes who benefitted from an improved farm, and this effect lasted generations.
Once the game was in place selecting for increased empathy, you still had evolutionary preassure for being able to kill to defend yourdelf, or to kill the animals you loved for food, so my guess is that we evolved the ability to kill without much emmotion because we just feel it is necessary.
As for militarism and soldiers, I personally think less agressive is the best, cold analytical, since most of the time is spent with fellow soldiers, and not the enemy.
The lower agressive level could also be easily be compensated with training in fighting armed.
Beeing able to live in large numbers together without conflict, thus becomes important if you want a big army, where not everybody hates eachother. Same goes if you want a technological advanced army, where civil technology is the drivingforce behind equipment soldiers carry.
“We’re more innovative and imaginative, but lack the patience and attentiveness of the existing managerial castes. Relative to them, we as a people suffer from attention-deficit disorder and this vulnerability is exploited time and again”
This is better than I could have said it myself.
I disagree. The Hindus and Arabs are not examples of ancient ‘cognitive elites.’ They are degenerate mixed races. The Indians tried to maintain the purity of their ruling caucasian “varna” (which originally meant “color.”) but they failed. They were an elite trying to maintain their oligarchy – not an elite trying to improve and expand their genepool.
If a new cognitive elite emerges they will use mechanization rather than slavery to power their empire. The new elite will most likely engage in a prolonged period of ‘culling’ of the darker races. It could be through biological warfare or simply trade embargos. Just like no food stamps or free hospital visits for America’s underclass would result in their quick disappearance.
I am surprised to find someone advancing hypothesis about beautiful looks within the context of the Aryan beauty of females, which is my main preoccupation in these times of treason and Western suicide. I had harbored thoughts like this before but never dared to write them down in a scientific manner. I encourage Wikitopian to continue this line of research to its ultimate consequences.
Although female Caucasian beauty is my ultimate religion, the motor that moves me to hate with all my soul the treasonous anti-white racists, my own line of research through the last decade has been quite different, as I’m trying to convey in the Gates of Vienna blogsite with my book The Return of Quetzalcoatl. I don’t want to overwhelm the readers of these posts with tons of info about how the relatively new discipline known as psychohistory has demonstrated that non-western cultures have abused far more their children and women than us. In a nutshell, I believe that there’s a correlation of Caucasian beauty with our gentler modes of childrearing and the treatment of our women.
While the Chinese have higher IQs (105) than the average white, they have tormented their females for centuries. In addition to this, our power rests upon the fact that once in a while Caucasians are able to produce males of +160 IQ. This and the angelic beauty of some Aryan females (and treating them accordingly – cf. Psychohistory) must have been the basic cause for our previous success vis-à-vis the other races (before the suicidal religion of liberalism took over).
Absolutely fascinating stuff! Seminal articles like Wikitopian’s may prove to be part of the corner stones of a future building to understand the power of whites.
Sam,
Brahmins aren’t degenerate. They’re well-selected for a different context. Environmental selection favors smaller, darker, and less intelligent hominids. Military selection favors taller, lighter, and more intelligent hominids. Civilization is an entire habitat in itself, with a variety of niches – none of which strongly select for appearance.
The net effect in India is that there was a darkening in the populations closest to the rainforest pygmies. The Dravidian ruling elite were originally White but became progressively darker, to the point that Southern India has a noteworthy population of very dark but very intelligent elites. White racialists tend to forget that there was a very mature civilization present when the Aryans invaded, and that the Aryan military and linguistic bark was stronger than its genetic and cultural bite.
Jews in Europe appear increasingly like their hosts, to the point where one can’t even distinguish between the two. This is an undeniable advantage and it may have been similarly advantageous to look more like the dark brown minions under one’s aegis.
“As I suggest in my essay above, the only way that humanity actually progresses is through military selection, something which is only occurring in Africa at the moment.”
Wiki,
From the above what is your definition of progress for humanity?
Willy,
I believe that selection for more creative and aesthetically pleasing humans is only produced in the sexually selective race condition described above, one which can be quite unpleasant to watch. The warlords in Africa are evolving at an extremely rapid pace by this very process. Somalis are becoming market-dominant minorities throughout much of Africa while polygamous polymaths from Kenya have exploited global travel and trade networks to add White American women to their harems.
It wouldn’t be the first time a more intelligent and aesthetically attractive race indigenous to Europe was leapfrogged by African invaders. Don’t panic, but the process may be much farther along than you might assume. If we don’t find some way to synthetically simulate this selective pattern, we’ll be hosed as a people within mere generations.
There’s a vast literature on population genetics that addresses questions like these – you probably should study up on it if you want to put this argument on a rigorous footing. Also, I don’t think you’re the first person to propose such a mechanism for increasing the brains and good looks of the population.
In any case, I don’t see why your model shows anything at all about the importance of military competition. Wouldn’t economic competition achieve the same thing (people with the most brains acquire more resources and can afford more, better looking wives)? In other words, what is the difference between selection for military prowess and selection for economic ability in terms of the effect on the gene pool?
“It wouldn’t be the first time a more intelligent and aesthetically attractive race indigenous to Europe was leapfrogged by African invaders.”
You endorse OOA?
I’m not sure if the Neanderthals were that attractive, even if that theory is correct.
“The warlords in Africa are evolving at an extremely rapid pace by this very process.”
And yet the IQs in Africa haven’t been getting higher yet.
“while polygamous polymaths from Kenya have exploited global travel and trade networks to add White American women to their harems.”
Not common. Barack Obama Sr. only example I can think of.
What Woman would choose to live in Africa, anyway?
Also, Illustrative Demo is very confusing, and you’ll never get published with that ugly thing in an article.
Reader,
I’m definitely not the first person to propose something along these lines. But the sexual selection models have fallen out of favor and I can’t find a satisfactory reason why. The reason why military selection is key is that the losers die. As others have noted in differing discussions, polygamy is unstable when you have a surplus of frustrated males.
Reginald,
I endorse a modified OOA, in which a small but pivotal Neanderthal admixture into the genome of the invasive rainforest pygmies resulted in Cro-Magnon man within a relatively short period.
Neanderthal reconstructions strike me as more attractive than Australian Aboriginals, Negrito pygmies, and other examples of archaic Sapiens.
The average IQ in Africa is an inappropriate metric. If a military elite is emerging which is well-positioned to displace and replace the demographic froth, then the actual averages are beside the point. I believe this is the case, but we’ll see.
Relatively few first world women are being drawn to Africa to be with warlords, but the most powerful third world men do have themselves some hotties. That might make for a good post.
Sorry about the unattractive table. I’m not quite sure how to convey what I need to convey yet keep it simple and intuitive.
It sure is. Along with their boycotts, bribery, fraud, censorship, indoctrination, disinformation, “philanthropy”, “wet work”, etc. The aggressive discourse provides cover for all the rest. It keeps any discussion of competition out of the mainstream.
Tanstaafl,
Do you realize that we are the ONLY people held captive by Jewish influence? Watch Defamation. Watch those Black street walkers naming the Jew, explaining his angle, and refusing to play the game. Watch the Arabs. Watch the awareness of the problem throughout Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, and even East Asia. Look at how many pogroms have happened throughout history. Each one of those nations, of all sizes and intelligence levels, solved the problem with little sweat, no? Look at how the Jews dwindled into obscurity in China and India. Look at how they’re relegated to a niche role in Persia and other places.
WE are following them like imprinted ducklings. And why? Because they’ve actually become our elite. They’re not uniquely evil. They’re not particularly special. They’re a managerial elite. If they hadn’t stumbled onto the biggest wide open opportunity in human history, we would be under the thrall of some other alien managerial elite.
The aristocrats became decadent without their wars. The Catholic priests lost their faith. The Freemasons entertained universalist ideals that left them open to infiltration and subversion. The Protestant “leadership” are totally at the mercy of the congregation which is totally at the mercy of the choke-point institutions. It’s important to be Jew-wise, to vividly and directly reject their self-appointed role in our society. But the only actual solution, the only path which will yield any fruit for our people, is to raise up an indigenous elite and then direct our loyalty toward it.
When your home gets invaded will you say, “nobody else on our block got invaded, therefore the problem must be us”?
Ours is not the only civilization jews have ever infiltrated, beguiled, exploited, and driven to ruin. They’ve outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. Their self-described “golden age” was in muslim-occupied Spain. They prospered in iran until Khomeini.
Today their influence extends worldwide. They haven’t just bankrupted us, they’ve also swindled the jew-wary arabs and jew-wise chinese. You see what Kunstler is doing, desperately trying to redirect attention and blame onto “cornpone nazis”? I imagine the big finance jews are doing some similarly desperate but more discreet hand-waving, assuring the arabs and chinese that the Fed and the Bank of England are WASP operations they’ve deviously fronted with jew patsys.
We are not uniquely gullible.
We do not have the power to raise an elite or direct anyone’s loyalty to it. What is within our power is to recognize and resist alien usurpers, which in turn may make it possible for an elite loyal to us to rise.
Yes, Wiki, some of us do realize that we, meaning primarily the White English speaking people, are essentially following Jewry around like Lorenz’s imprinted ducklings. This is the ultimate conundrum of our self-destructive dilemma, nay, race denying miasma. Our people are mal-indoctrinated and drowning in universalist fantasies. The Anglo world needs a racial/ideological revolution in thought, in the worst way, yet only seems to ever come up with more self-defeating delusions and shadow boxing. We need a racial-political revolution, and instead beget ‘tea parties’ and feel good flag waving. What kind of make believe fool’s paradise do these people inhabit? When simple street Negroes exhibit racial moxie in spades, and even know about the Protocols, what’s to be said about the enslaved mindset of our deracinated people? How can our people be so cluster fornicated stupid??
The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that the world’s Anglos have been ideologically Judaized for centuries, and most of them are essentially clueless about it. Many are even pugnaciously “proud” about their willful ignorance. of most vital interests. Our people’s philosophical, spiritual, and political immaturity is astounding; huge segments of the White Anglo population think and act like juveniles in adult bodies. Our people’s mindset and behavior is nauseating, to say nothing of being flat out cowardly.
Something needs to be done, and in a hell of a hurry. Most of the posters at this blog are the most savvy, race wise and literate White’s that I am aware of, and I salute you all. Most posters here seem to be very able to separate the real McCoy from the decoy, in a Jew Yawk minute. Yes, Wiki, we need to build that indigenous, elite, White vanguard, and support it loyally and faithfully. We need to be the organized will of the people.
So this latest attempt to sneak polygyny through the back door is on the grounds that Africans are supposedly in the process of creating a brilliant and aesthetically beautiful master race?
We may be hosed within mere generations, but not in the way you are imagining. Try The Camp of the Saints and Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization instead.
If MGLS is correct that this article is a subtle argument for polygamy, I will add that Whites were and are more monogamous than the more primitive races. It actually makes more sense for Whites to be monogamous, and the Tropical races polygamous.
I think environment is a factor for our appearance, though not necessarily the only one. I think a relative lack of sunlight and cold winters were also factors-although I do think military selection may have a factor in our unique evolution (in spite of the tropical races being warlike also).
“…I will add that Whites were and are more monogamous than the more primitive races. It actually makes more sense for Whites to be monogamous, and the Tropical races polygamous.” — Steve
—
Yes, yes indeed.
~
The American Spectator : Polygamy and Me
Tanstaafl,
Actually, If my home were invaded, I would ask myself why they selected my home.
The Jews did indeed outlast several kingdoms and empires. They’ve also done Jewish things to many of them along the way.
Kunstler has a legitimate fear that the tea party movement is perilously close to transitioning to an anti-Semitic one. It may be hysterical to call them Nazis, especially before they even become Jew-wise as a group, but it’s not some strategy. He has a point.
We are uniquely gullible.
We do have the power to raise an elite. They’re not holding us back to the extent that you think they are. It’s very dangerous to conclude that they’re stopping us from diverting our loyalty to an indigenous elite when they’re not. They may be discouraging us, but I don’t see a convincing case that White Americans have tried to even raise up an alternative.
Look at the Eastern Orthodox Church and Vladimir Putin in Russia. The people began to reorient toward indigenous elites and the Jewish oligarchs made one final raid of the treasuries before absconding to the West. I’m sure the billions were a small price to pay for indigenous determination.
MGLS,
You’re on to me, but upside down. The hypothesis caused the belief that this mating pattern is critical for our long-term maintenance and survival as a people. FLDS-style polygyny could be a non-violent way to arrive at a similar selective condition. Whiteness is applied polygyny. I exaggerated a bit with the African warlord thing, but I stand behind the general point.
Steve,
The White race has less male sex-linked chromosome diversity than other races. The whole matter will be settled in objective terms pretty soon, either for or against me. My suspicion is that my case will be proven by hard evidence and that’ll be that.
Most of the stuff about the dark and cold Winters selecting for Whiteness is patently bogus. They’re “just-so” stories. How do blue eyes confer a cold weather survival advantage? What evidence is there that Eskimo have any kind of Vitamin D issues? They’re pretty swarthy and yet evolved to the North of us.
Kulaks,
Thank you for posting an excerpt from an article which declares that polygyny and military selection are concomitant and that polygyny favors high status males, selecting for alpha males.
Wikitopian: So, Europeans could have developed their light complexion in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Regarding polygamy: I could understand permitting polygamy if there is a large surplus of women. But, when the ratio is about the same, or there is a a male surplus-I oppose polygamy. It’s unfair, and is really not a good way to convert common ‘average joe’ White males.
Unless, you think our movement will grow, by telling the common White batchelor “Come out and support us! We support the right of super-wealthy men to marry as many women as they want, and make your slim chances of finding a wife even lower (almost impossible).” Imagine the irony of a “pro-White” group allowing wealthy non-Whites to marry even more White women!
And with easy divorce, the problems associated with polygamy will be exacerbated, as even already married men will risk losing their wives to the males elites.
I know the message is only “alpha males” are worthy to procreate, and the humble ‘average joe’ should die a childless virgin. But remember, many of these “alpha males” are non-White. And some are even midgets, and otherwise genetically defected.
I know it sounds too bad to be true, but most women are willing marry a repulsive man, as long as he is rich and dominates her. And this trend would be increased with rich genetically defected men impressing more women, by the ones he already has.
Steve,
In theory, Whites could have evolved in sub-Saharan Africa, presuming the environmental pressures were relieved to the extent that they are now. I would argue that even in light of how much Whites from the temperate belt have infused inhospitable regions with technological advancements, Whites are still suboptimal for some habitats. After all, we did fail to colonize Africa. The Saami and Eskimo still rule the Northern tundra. Our habitat, I argue, is the fertile river valleys of the temperate belt.
All of the “what-if” arguments against introducing a polygynous GES are mitigated by the fact that one which did precisely that was instigated only a couple decades ago, with explosively successful results including a briefly autonomous explicitly White ethnostate. Right now, as you’re typing out reasons why it won’t work, FLDS families are demonstrating the basic soundness of the proposition.
I’m not suggesting that it’s a cure-all. I certainly respect that there are serious issues with the whole line of thought. But I don’t believe it’s been given a fair hearing or that anthropologists are on the right page with this given the genetic, archaeological, and historical data.
“I’m definitely not the first person to propose something along these lines. But the sexual selection models have fallen out of favor and I can’t find a satisfactory reason why.”
Perhaps because sexual selection is proxymate selection for some other trait that is beneficial.
If you look at blonde hair, it is an advantage when young if there is little sun, so the one who sexually prefered it managed to have more children growing up without rickets. It also looks to me that blond hair triggers protection mechanisms among adults.
“The reason why military selection is key is that the losers die. As others have noted in differing discussions, polygamy is unstable when you have a surplus of frustrated males.”
I disagree.
What you need is a population of free men, who constantly kill or refuse to help the ones who is trying to dominate them. What you basically just need is a society where it is the good guys who become the winners, because people see that it is in their own interest to have people like theese as their leaders.
Lactose tolerance and dairy farming also has evolutionary implications for what is that optimal breeding strategy for a couple of reasons.
1. If you get a forreign wife, only 50% of your children will be lactose tolerant. Same goes for the empathy with the animals you needed in order to be successfull against the others who had empathy with their animals, and were your competitors.
2. Once you have an inheritance system where the farm goes to the oldest son, a male would maximaze his decendantes by investing in the farm, rather than invest in more wifes, that would just bring problems for the next generation.
Also since the farms was not constantly split up, you would get really well fed surplus population from the farms to send to the cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odelsrett
3. The germanic inheritance rights also meant that the number two-three and four males needed to find some form of living outside the farm, or for that matter join some other men, and go conquer some farm situated somewhere else. (Preferably from somebody your local community saw as evil people.)
As for what I think happened, it was that the germanics really didn’t conquer anything, they just cleared land where nobody else could, and once they had done this, their lactose tolerance just slowly outcompeted anybody else living close by, since they constanly produced a high quality surplus population.
I just one to mention one more subject where I think N-europeans differ from the rest, and that is what we are genetically breed to fear.
Since you lived on a farm, and everything you needed to survive came from this, you simply died from exposure and hunger if you lost it, so there was no use in not fighting to the death. Anybody that it was posible to scare away, is thus not my ancestors.
Lack of fear is also connected to seamanship, where the one who dared go a little bit further could feed his family, or where the ones who just did what needed to be done instead of collapsing in fear, managed to survive storms where others died.
Making enemies however, do becomes very dangerous when you are living in the same place for generations, and where everybody sooner or later gets the posibility to take revenge, so fear of socially offending becomes something that would be selected for, since the offensive ones would spend to much time waring with eachother.
The difference in what we fear also has implications on how we solve conflicts, where it becomes rational for the germanic to bow out of conflict as long as they get to keep their farm. The reason this works, is that people who use dirty tricks or tries to dominate to get something for free, usually does with more than just you, so if you just wait, you will have allies and the offender none.
If we aggregate this to the conflict with the jews, the arabs have managed to live with the jews without becoming dominated by them for 2000 years, while whites seems to become dominated by them for a while, until enough of the population gets pissed enough, to throw them collectively out.
I want to say that modern immigration have changed this dynamic for getting bad guys, since by the time enough gets pissed, there might be to few whites left in white countries.
Volk,
There’s not really any evidence for the Vitamin D hypothesis of skin Whiteness. The Eskimo are quite swarthy. The Berbers are quite light. The Tasmanian Aboriginals are as black as NeoNietzsche’s heart. It seems to me that skin lightness is most highly correlated with what percentage of your ancestors evolved along one of the major temperate river valleys.
Arabs used to have a similar framework, with Arab leaders overseeing Jewish managers. But it proved unstable and the Islamic indigenous elite first merely disempowered the Jews (as we should do) and only began to become hostile toward them as a result of the Palestinian occupation. All the Russians had to do was grant their loyalty to Putin and the Eastern Orthodox Church and *presto*, the Jewish Problem is basically resolved. No blood. No pogrom. No big deal.
“I would argue that even in light of how much Whites from the temperate belt have infused inhospitable regions with technological advancements, Whites are still suboptimal for some habitats. After all, we did fail to colonize Africa. The Saami and Eskimo still rule the Northern tundra. Our habitat, I argue, is the fertile river valleys of the temperate belt”
The Saami have such a low population density, that they do not really dominate any area. The saami for instance never took over the small strip of land close to the coast, where scandinavian families could surve mainly by fishing, and just having a single cow or two so that the children had milk, but where it was to cold to survive as just a farmer. NB. the Saami came to Scandinavia around 1500 years ago, as the climate gradually worsened since the holocene optimum 6000 years ago.
What is also interesting is that the Finns are also better at living in very cold areas than the Scandinavians, IF it is away from water. For instance, Sweden and Norway have a Finnish minority in their deep forrests, and Finland have a Swedish speaking minority along the coast.
Finns are blonder and have whiter skin than scandinavians, and the darkest scandinavians are from areas along the coast, where D-vitamine from fish all the time, skewed the payoff for blonde hair.
“Volk,
There’s not really any evidence for the Vitamin D hypothesis of skin Whiteness. The Eskimo are quite swarthy. The Berbers are quite light. The Tasmanian Aboriginals are as black as NeoNietzsche’s heart. It seems to me that skin lightness is most highly correlated with what percentage of your ancestors evolved along one of the major temperate river valleys.”
Last I read was that they are fitting evolution of blonde hair when people started having a grainbased diet, that compared to the hunter-gatherer diet, lacked in vitamine D. Eating grain only, would thus lighten your skin relative to the hunter-gatherers living around you.
It is one of those areas where it is no use in speculating to much, as they have started to test skeletons to find out what genetical phenotypes various people in various places had, so in a few years time we will know.
The Single White Cause?
It is possible to reject the Single Jewish Cause without accepting the other extreme.
Tanstaafl,
The whole “Single Jewish Cause vs Single White Cause” paradigm is flawed. If somebody breaks into my unlocked home, then I could have prevented the burglary. I’m not “blaming the victim”. I’m seeking a way for my people to handle this situation. The solution is obviously two-fold: kick the guy out and start locking the door.
Another example would be Indians and alcohol. Whites are the cause of alcohol being introduced to the Amerindians. They exploited the situation shamelessly for profit and political advantage with little concern for the welfare of the natives. However, from an Amerindian standpoint, the presence of White people and alcohol is a given. Is there a Single White Cause since Whites brought alcohol? Is there a Single Red Cause since Amerindians are uniquely vulnerable to alcoholism?
Who cares? White people are here. Alcohol is here. The job of the chief is to guide his people toward traditional and autonomous folkways and behaviors that reduce the impact of alcoholism on his village.
I’m not here to discuss the JQ. I’m here to discuss the WQ. The JQ is obviously the single most perplexing issue facing my people, but it’s not THE issue. The issue is not the Jews. The American Indians could have stalled the advance of the White man in North America had they changed their attitudes and behaviors in time, but they didn’t. They didn’t shy away from sitting around “blaming” the White man but that didn’t accomplish dick.
Jews who excelled at reading Talmudic discourse and patiently applying usury need to merely make things too boring and byzantine for the gentile and he hands over his civilization without a fight.
A risk taken by the writers ( – Wikitopian) at MajorityRights and OccidentalDissent!
“Another example would be Indians and alcohol. Whites are the cause of alcohol being introduced to the Amerindians. They exploited the situation shamelessly for profit and political advantage with little concern for the welfare of the natives. However, from an Amerindian standpoint, the presence of White people and alcohol is a given. Is there a Single White Cause since Whites brought alcohol? Is there a Single Red Cause since Amerindians are uniquely vulnerable to alcoholism?”
Wine and beer is something completly different than spirits, and whites becomes alcoholics almost as easily on spirits as the Amerindians, the Saami or the Irish.
The Gin Craze was a period in the first half of the 18th century when the consumption of gin became popular with the working classes in Britain – especially in London. There ensued an epidemic of extreme drunkenness that provoked moral outrage and a legislative backlash which some compare to the modern drug wars.
Five major Acts were passed between 1729 and 1751 designed to control the consumption of gin (in 1729, 1736, 1743, 1747 and 1751). Though many similar drinks were available, and alcohol consumption was considerable at all levels of society, it was gin (otherwise known as Mother’s Ruin, Madam Geneva, The Makeshift, Slappy Bonita, and even ‘King Theodor of Corsica’) which caused the greatest public concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_Craze
Scandinaivia at this time, was an orgy in drunkeness as well, and it set the table for the pietism and teetotalers that came later.
Tanstaafl,
Yesterday I watched for the first time in my life the 1974 film The Great Gatsby, starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow; directed by Jack Clayton from a screenplay of Coppola based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
None of these people are Jewish. But I found a subliminal message very akin to the more recent race-treasonous films that paint the whites and the West as the bad guys, quite a few of them directed or screen-written by the Jewish people at Hollywood.
I am not saying I’m having second thoughts about what I wrote recently about this sort anti-western Jews. But the whole point is that we must blame with equal ferocity all of the gentile liberals who also have contributed to demonize the white nationalists and the western culture. After all, it was author Scott Fitzgerald, an Irish Catholic, who featured a reference to a conservative racialist author in The Great Gatsby, as we will see.
The film where the good guy Jay Gatsby (Robert Redford) is murdered starts with the following dialogue between Tom Buchanan (Bruce Dern) and his guest. At the end of the film Tom looks like a bad guy who incited the murder of Jay.
Tom: “Nick, have you read that book, The Rise of the Coloured Empires by Goddard?”
Nick: “Why? no.”
Tom: “Well, it is a fine book. Everyone ought to read it. See the point is that if we don’t watch out, the white race will be utterly submerged…”
Nick’s face denotes incredulity.
Tom: “No, that’s so! It’s up to us. We, the dominant race, must watch out, or the other races will have control of things.”
Daisy Buchanan (Mia Farrow) sarcastically says: “We’ve got to beat them down.”
Tom: “Daisy, it has all been scientifically proved. You see we’re Nordics. You are, and I am and… Anyway, we are responsible for all the things that made civilization: art science, and all that.”
Further comment in my blog.
By the way, I thought of the name of the future WN home-school, “Napoleon’s Pups.”
*
It would probably take some kind of racial dictatorship to bring about this new elite, and we know how the Jews would respond to that
*
But the only actual solution, the only path which will yield any fruit for our people, is to raise up an indigenous elite and then direct our loyalty toward it.
*
Yes, Wiki, we need to build that indigenous, elite, White vanguard, and support it loyally and faithfully. We need to be the organized will of the people.
Someone call the parameds to monitor OldRight and Anthony.
Mention “cerebral infarction”.
Thank you for posting an excerpt from an article which declares that polygyny and military selection are concomitant and that polygyny favors high status males, selecting for alpha males. — Wiki
It does say this??
Regarding polygamy: I could understand permitting polygamy if there is a large surplus of women. But, when the ratio is about the same, or there is a a male surplus-I oppose polygamy. It’s unfair, and is really not a good way to convert common ‘average joe’ White males. — Steve
—
Especially when nearly all men are “average” in one way or another.
Just like with the very small percentage of so-called ‘alpha’ (exceptionally beautiful) women — whose attractiveness ‘shelf-life’ is approximately fifteen years — the same principle applies to many ‘alpha’ males — who themselves will revert more toward the average and be ultimately supplanted by a competitor and a rival for the ‘Big Man’ slot.
Hence, as the article I posted says – “… competition among males becomes much more violent because the stakes are so high.” Especially so when it is between men of the same race (i.e. -White men) who should be cooperating with — rather than competing against — eachother, especially in a violent way when their Tribe and People are under near-existential attack from The Other.
NeoNietzsche
Yes, Wiki, we need to build that indigenous, elite, White vanguard, and support it loyally and faithfully. We need to be the organized will of the people.
Someone call the parameds to monitor OldRight and Anthony.
Mention “cerebral infarction”.
You don’t get it. I don’t object to military rule, I object to you. Nietzsche’s vicious, amoral philosophy is no better than Talmudism.
If there was a white nationalist coup I would support the white government so long as whites retained property rights and the right to bear arms. Most likely a white nationalist military government would be led by jew wise orthodox and fundamentalist Christians, moralists not nihilists.
The opposite of Nietzsche. Chances are you’d be the one subverting the state with your atheistic propaganda and I’d be in the posse rounding up the blasphemers for public burning.
“A risk taken by the writers ( – Wikitopian) at MajorityRights and OccidentalDissent!”
Which is why I try to spice it up whenever possible. And smashing “borgo” when he pops up is also good for a few laughs.
Kulaks,
Does the article not associate polygamy with militarism and suggest that only high-status males get to reproduce? That’s all I’m saying.
Once again, I find these alleged problems with polygyny to be negated by its functional and fertile application among communities that actually exist right now.
“Another example would be Indians and alcohol. Whites are the cause of alcohol being introduced to the Amerindians. They exploited the situation shamelessly for profit and political advantage with little concern for the welfare of the natives. However, from an Amerindian standpoint, the presence of White people and alcohol is a given. Is there a Single White Cause since Whites brought alcohol? Is there a Single Red Cause since Amerindians are uniquely vulnerable to alcoholism?
Who cares? White people are here. Alcohol is here. The job of the chief is to guide his people toward traditional and autonomous folkways and behaviors that reduce the impact of alcoholism on his village.”
Wiki,
In your example if Whites continued to consistently and creatively try to have the Indians keep consuming alcohol then they (their Chief and Tribe) would be fools not to deal with the Whites the way Tan says we should deal with Jews. The Indian weakness for alcohol isn’t cured if they cleanse Whites from their presence but the weakness can actually then be managed.
If White presence is a “given” as you say then the solution is much different if it’s even possible. The Indian weakness for booze would need to be purged if possible through eugenic policies to weed out the weakness. But, if the Whites controlled who makes the policies and if they truly wanted to keep the Indians as compliant cattle they would prevent the eugenic policies.
In this case for the Indian there is no way out except through the Whites.
“I’m not here to discuss the JQ. I’m here to discuss the WQ. The JQ is obviously the single most perplexing issue facing my people, but it’s not THE issue. The issue is not the Jews. The American Indians could have stalled the advance of the White man in North America had they changed their attitudes and behaviors in time, but they didn’t. They didn’t shy away from sitting around “blaming” the White man but that didn’t accomplish dick.”
Wiki,
The Indian had no chance against the White Man due to the technological and societal advantages enjoyed by Whites. So my earlier response was probably the only way the Indians stood any chance but still a virtual impossibility. The case of Whites vs. Jews is different. They are using our own technology and (perverted) ideals against us. Once we are free from this control we “can” fend them off in theory. We have the means. The question is do we have the will?
And no, Jews are not a single cause of our predicament. They are simply the most obvious symptom/cause and most in need of remedy.
Back to your original point…
Let’s say we all agreed that your model is the best for the progress of our race. How do we even implement it given the realities of how we are currently controlled?