The outright assault on the traditional family structure continues. This time, Father’s Day, an annual day set aside to appreciate the healthy father figure in people’s lives, but even this couldn’t stay pure for long.
Good Morning Britain tweeted that:
“Is it time to ban Father’s Day? With a rise in single parent, blended, and same-sex families, is it time to get more inclusive and appreciate parents all year round?”
With a total disregard for the science behind a non-traditional family structure, the mainstream media is bashing a symbol of stability, success, happiness, and wellbeing.
The negative effect of non-traditional families on human wellbeing is astonishingly understated, as I will explain.
85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
Boys who grow up in fatherless homes have significantly lower testosterone levels than average.
Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers.
71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
71% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
Stefan Molyneux, a popular philosophy YouTuber, covered the effects of female-headed/single mother households and the associated poverty rates. In every example poverty rates were above that of the average poverty rate and the poverty rate of married couple families.
Welfare rewards and encourages social instability and boosts dependence on the state/big government.
Molyneux also discussed in the video below that in the West the introduction of welfare has subsidized irresponsibility by taxing stable, good income families and redistributing the resources to keep single mother households afloat. The effect of this is placing pressure on responsible members of society and encouraging social instability by funding the lower-end of society and helping it flourish.
Molyneux argues that because society is accustomed to the “safety net” guarantee of welfare, it feels at liberty to make irresponsible decisions and involve itself in marriages, decisions and partnerships that are dysfunctional rather than practical.
Welfare has broken apart the strength of strong, effective families and replaced it with an irreverence towards forging lasting, stable relationships — which form the bedrock of society.
To take things further, the deep state economists and legislators are perfectly aware that subsidizing bad decisions will equal more bad decisions. In fact, it’s their goal; suppress social stability and cohesion in the masses, promote fragmentation, atomization and encourage an unhealthy dependence and allegiance to a nanny/provider state, that, by extension, gets to call all the shots and direct all policy-making unhindered.
Feeding a cancer helps it to grow — the welfare state is a powerful fertilizer for the social cancers that afflict western civilization.
More welfare emboldens the weak, erodes the stable middle class, and empowers the deep state.
Race relations is one of the biggest globalist social engineering efforts of the past fifty to sixty years, race has constantly been taken out of context and called an ‘issue of skin color’ by the race propagandists; civil rights figures fought the ‘good fight’, while the opposition; always equated to ‘racist extremists’; were the ‘baddies’.
I will open with two powerful quotes:
“We need to get rid of our liberal preconceptions. Men are not born equal, this is something which has not yet got through to the politicians, and it is by no means clear that all races are equally gifted.”
— Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA
“All the evidence to date suggests the strong and indeed overwhelming importance of genetic factors in producing the great variety of intellectual differences which we observe in our culture, and much of the differences observed between racial groups.”
— Hans Eysenck, Professor of Psychology at London University
In a survey from 1985 only 16% of biologists and 36% of educational psychologists disagreed with the statement “There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens“.
‘Race realists’ view race as a natural phenomenon to be observed, studied, and explained. They believe the human race is a valid biological concept, similar to sub-species or breeds or strains.
On the other side, those I term the hermeneusticists view “race” as an epiphenomenon, (like gender as opposed to “sex”) a mere social construction, with political and economic forces as the real causal agents. Rather than actually research race, hermeneuticists research those who study race.
The race-realist approach is empirical and employs a myriad of scientific methodologies, including surveys, social demography, IQ and personality tests, and behavior genetic analyses (e.g. twin studies).
The hermeneutical approach relies on textual, historical, and political analysis. The race-realist viewpoint is descriptive, explanatory, and typically avoids prescribing policy. Because the hermeneutical viewpoint sees inexorable links between theory and practice, its writings are often prescriptive and assume an advocacy position.
To their opponents, the race-realist approach comes across as cold, detached, and suspect of hiding a “racist” agenda. Hermeneuticists appear to race-realists as muddled, heated, and ideologically committed to an anti-racist activism.
Scientific race realism is not racist. Racism requires hatred. So the belief that some races are better than others is not racist: it is simply the scientific truth.
This article will put race into scientific context and expand on the deliberately suppressed and underrepresented information surrounding the topic.
These numbers came from a work carried out from 2002 to 2006 by Richard Lynn, a British Professor of Psychology, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish Professor of Political Science, who conducted IQ studies in more than 80 countries.
Richard Dawkins, ethologist & evolutionary biologist on the topic of racial classification:
“However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.”
— Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale
"Social construct"? Forget it. Race is biologically real. But it's irrelevant to anything that matters. We're all HUMAN.
Yes, we’re all human, we must love one another, but that should not stop us accepting our biodiversity as something to be seriously taken into consideration.
The weakest of us should not be arbitrarily ‘represented’ as the best of us against all natural authority; that isn’t wise or meritocratic, it is dangerously delusional.
Research on ethnic heterogeneity has found that divided societies have numerous and severe problems.
What we have in modern times is forced redistribution of resources to lower IQ groups, allowing them to r-selectively breed, this drags the whole of society down, benefiting only the rich Jewish oligarchs who stand to gain from the weakness of a genetically decaying population.
The human racial differential phenomenon.
On the other hand, if this natural selective process is allowed to act out on its own, certain racial groups, depending on the extent of their differences, will, on the whole, remain separated.
What is naturally effective will be represented accordingly, what is not naturally effective will not be represented, this is not racism as we’ve been told (i.e. whites being more wealthy and better represented), this is natural selection in action, without it, the human race, and civilization, would simply not survive.
This natural segregation phenomenon is being deliberately suppressed, multicultural societies are mainly living apart (with bell curve to be accounted for), this truth is being kept from you.
Groups of people with similar IQ levels are able to integrate, hence why many east Asians are able to perfectly integrate in the West, as the IQ point difference increases it drops down to just assimilation, and then finally full segregation.
The fact that there are no culturally divided societies that are even remotely like the multicultural harmonious utopia we are being sold should cause concern (but is instead ignored).
“This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed.” ― Angela Merkel
Segregation – Different cultures are kept separate from one another.
Assimilation – Minority cultures adopt the culture of the majority.
Multiculturalism assumes there are no important biological forces keeping different groups set apart. It envisions a world where all cultures live in peace and unity. Opponents hold that this is an impossible fantasy that leads to alienation and anomie, especially when different ethnic groups are together.
Historical observances: most historical, non-socialist empires having many cultures have if anything practiced extensive self-segregation. The different cultures are usually allowed very extensive autonomy to manage their own affairs (including having separate law systems) as long as they pay taxes to the empire. The different groups to a large degree self-segregate from one another in the empire.
For example, in modern day Britain, Islamic migrants have evidently not integrated or even assimilated to the presiding Western culture. What underpins this is a combination of genetic, social, and environmental factors.
Results from various surveys in Britain on British Muslims have been described as stating that:
62% do not believe in the protection of free speech.
58% believe insulting Islam should result in criminal prosecution.
68% support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
61% want homosexuality punished.
only 7% think of themselves as British first (81% say ‘Muslim’ rather than ‘Briton’).
31% identify more with Muslims in other countries than with non-Muslim Brits.
11% find violence for political ends acceptable.
up to 52% believe a Muslim man is entitled to up to four wives.
51% believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian’s consent.
1 in 10 support killing a family member over “dishonor”.
1 in 5 young British Muslims agree that ‘honor’ violence is acceptable.
28% want Britain to be an Islamic state.
40% want sharia in the UK.
40% of British Muslim students want sharia.]
On the other hand, the native population feels as follows:
A 2017 US survey found that is asked if the United States was “losing its culture and identity,” 55% of respondents said yes, with 68% of white working class Americans feeling that way. Almost half (48%) of white working class Americans also feel that “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country,” while 62% believe that immigrants arriving from other countries threaten American culture.
A 2017 UK survey found that 56% believe that local culture was threatened by ethnic minorities.
Research on biological/genetic mechanisms related to racial genetic interests has found that different groups tend to feel more empathy for and favor their own group which makes group conflict very difficult to avoid. This research also implies that assimilation/integration may not work unless the different groups are genetically similar. Thus, the different immigrant European groups to the United States could be assimilated/integrated but this may not work with immigrant groups that are more genetically different.
Stefan Molyneux elaborates as to why this racial segregation phenomenon occurs:
Other leading sources on race realism:
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance,
J Philippe Rushton of the Pioneer Fund,
Charles Murray of “The Bell Curve”,
HBDers, the scientific wing of race realism. If race is a fact of nature, then it can and should be studied by science.
Al-Andalus – Lacking any good example of a current multicultural utopia, supporters of multiculturalism have instead often claimed that Al-Andalus (medieval Islamic Iberia) was one, before being destroyed by White Christians.
Globalist cultural-Marxism is a method of undermining the success of natural systems of genetic selection, et al, for personal gain.
Cultural Marxism: the gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble everything under the Globalist model for world governance.
Race manipulation is just one part of this agenda. I will focus on race realism and genetic engineering as a powerful tool for population control.
Anti-meritocratic minority representation.
Anti-white minority ‘representation’ is afoot across school, media, professional, and political spheres.
They want to exalt desirable minorities and repress undesirable whites.
Minorities are grossly over-represented, while ‘white guilt’ and other cultural-Marxist social engineering ploys have been used to destroy the order-based western mindset and genotype, replacing it with the chaos-based third world mindset and genotype as a methodology for dysgenic population control.
Minority representation is a deliberate illusion.
The <1% remains majority white Ashkenazi Jews; nothing changes for them, yet everything changes for the population they want to control.
By ‘representing’ minorities in high-earning and highly regarded roles as a ‘progressive’ social justice statement in a ‘post racial’ world, those in control gain more obedience, and create yet more popular acceptance for mass-migration and multiracial societies. Meanwhile, they still hold onto the real seats of power; having given away mere symbols of power, and not substantial power.
Average vs. extreme groups differences.
Another point is that only looking at average differences between groups may be misleading. Many characteristics that are influenced by many factors (like by many genes) will (due to the “central limit theorem”) have a “normal distribution” (a “bell curve” distribution). However, a characteristic of this distribution is that differences will be amplified at the extremes. Thus, group differences will be more pronounced at extreme values than they are at more average values. In practice, this means that racial differences will be more pronounced at extreme values (such as at extreme IQ values). Furthermore, in some situations these extreme groups may be particularly important. For example, it may be extreme rather than average persons that make most inventions. Thus, only looking at average group differences may in some situations be misleading.
Hiding the genetic ceiling with the glass ceiling.
Nothing changes at the very top of the hierarchy, but the general public are led to believe that the future is ‘minorities in high places’, i.e. Barack Obama, Sadiq Khan and so on, that minority groups were held back by a social glass ceiling, rather than a biological genetic one.
The Globalists have intentionally undermined natural selectivity, because they control corporate forces that are powerful and influential enough to overwrite the natural order that has ruled for so long and stood in the way of controlling populations.
Now they drive the direction of humanity’s genetic future, by rewriting the human genetic and epigenetic DNA they can pull the biological strings of the human race at their will.
Their false racial paradigm was and continues to be drilled deep into the minds of new generations to indoctrinate an irrational liberality founded in emotion rather than in scientific truth surrounding the subjects of race, colour, and creed — and the truth about biodiversity.
The stigma of being called a ‘racist’.
The fear of being labelled a ‘racist’ is one of the biggest mass-hysteric trends of our time, it is a designed social stigma that aims to suppress discussion and acknowledgement of the rational race discussion, this allows social engineering and race-mixing to take place with minimal popular resistance.
There’s a reason the migrant crisis heavily favors African and middle eastern migrants; they have the detrimental genotype and mindset they want to mass-introduce in the West, to create a worker subclass accustomed to poverty, corruption, and illiteracy. They use the welfare state and ‘open-door’ policy making as a magnet for these migrants.
This reality is consistently censored in the West as we are spoonfed the emotional narrative of the race discussion everyday; that those who challenge orthodox race and immigration ideas must, without question, be motivated by an extremist and irrational racist ‘hatred’, and whatever they have to say ought to be dismissed.
Race is not a social construct, it is biological.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. offered a beautifully idealistic, yet token concept in his famous Washington speech in 1963.
“The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true.”
He claimed that our differences are not biological, but a result of hard graft, merit, and self-determination. He made an argument for environmental causes defining the ‘content of our characters’, but ignored the biological factors that also define who and what we are as human beings.
Environment plays a partial role in defining us, not an absolute role.
“If only environmental factors were responsible for the different IQs of different populations, we should expect to find some countries where Africans had higher IQs than Europeans. The failure to find a single country where this is the case points to the presence of a strong genetic factor.” — Richard Lynn
“Regression would explain why Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents.” — Arthur Jensen
Today, to even consider race in a non-collectivist light is heavily opposed, both legally and socially. We stand to lose resources, friends, our reputation, or our ego if we stand for what seems to be an idea already beaten by what we are told is the ‘consensus’, that race is a social construct that divides us.
As an individual, it makes sense to go with the ‘politically correct’ herd, to avoid the headache; because it’s the path of least resistance. But the dire implications of doing this are overlooked. Our biodiversity shapes the qualities (or flaws) and the rise or fall of civilization itself, understanding race is understanding ourselves and what it means to be human.
Civilization is made up of human individuals, but speciation can bring on collective racial traits.
Civilization is made up of biological human individuals, our environment is an extension of ourselves; our biology precedes everything we think of, everything we produce, our inclination and reception to certain persuasions, and every trait that enables the group to flourish, or to flounder.
IQ and good genes creates success and progression, poor genetics causes regression, environmental factors play a role too, but the genetic role is understated.
This is an imperative dynamic to successful civilization, a nation of the genetically healthy is going to be a nation set for success.
Garett Jones states in the video that:
“Smarter people are more likely to see the ‘invisible hand’, having smart, informed voters is crucial to a functioning civilization; to support market competition, to support some degree of long-term thinking, looking at the unseen versus the seen.”
Natural selection is everywhere, except in social justice ideology.
If you accept evolution, you accept race realism.
In the animal kingdom, successful genes always outlive weaker genes, stronger traits are passed on while weaker traits are cast aside, this process ensures the success and continuation of a species, it is a natural safeguard that has stood the test of time.
Humans follow these fundamental laws of nature too.
For example, in choosing a mate, or in a professional setting where a company hires on positive traits; a hardworking nature, punctuality, composure, adaptability, and creativity is favored over the slacker, a better candidate will net more resources and boost ‘survival’ chances — we can all agree to this common system of meritocracy; a nation is simply that on a larger scale among the mean genetic average of the associated group; it’s group awareness of what has worked for survival in the immediate environment, and a desire to preserve and embolden that.
Yet today, in the name of tolerance, we insist on immigration policies that bring in people that do not have the necessary traits, both biologically and environmentally, to both maintain and further western civilization.
Historical context: race and lineage has always been recognized.
Before the 17th-century scientific revolution, ideas about race were inchoate and unsystematic — “Folk anthropology.”
To the degree they included notions we would now consider biological, those notions came from:
With the Enlightenment, systematic biological classification was attempted, most persuasively by Linnaeus. Philosophers also took an interest — Kant, for example.
In modern times, the race debate is branded as ‘low-brow’ and nonintellectual, yet these leading thinkers partook in deliberating on race.
Race in the modern sense was salient in the 18th-century Americas and the Caribbean, which had long made use of black African and (to a much smaller degree) local indigenous peoples as slave labor. It was salient, too for the small minority of Europeans who had first-hand experience of Europe’s overseas empires.
This did not lead to much scientific theorizing, but it did cause a lot of noticing. Thomas Jefferson can be taken as representative.
The “long” 19th century (i.e. to 1914) saw the end of race slavery in the civilized world, and the rise and acceptance of evolutionary biology. There was much theorizing about race, most of it not very scientific. Charles Darwin was of course an outstanding exception — a great scientist.
The 20th century saw the rise of population genetics (Wright, Fisher, Haldane), the neo-Darwinian synthesis (Dobzhansky, Mayr) in evolutionary biology, the molecular structure of DNA (Watson & Crick), and rigorous psychometry (Burt, Eysenck, Jensen).
All these developments had implications for the understanding of race as a feature of the human world. Modern science has allowed us to prove many of these historical theories and observances.
Race Realism and Race Denialism.
Let’s start by defining ‘race’ itself, modern society has been taught to see race in terms of color, that we are ‘all the same underneath’. Race actually means something else altogether:
“The biological definition of race is a geographically isolated breeding population that shares certain characteristics in higher frequencies than other populations of that species, but has not become reproductively isolated from other populations of the same species.”
‘Race realism’ is the scientific point of view that:
Like any other widely-distributed species, Homo sapiens are divided into local varieties – races – that differ in their biology.
Where races show different statistical profiles on heritable traits – physiognomy, metabolism, disease susceptibility, and the BIP traits (Behavior, Intelligence, Personality) – it is reasonable to infer that biological differences are causal factors.
Biological race differences work together with adscititious factors (history, geography, epidemiology) to shape social outcomes.
The opposite of race realism is race denialism, and race denialism is the social ideology and practice promoted by Zionist Globalism in order to gain popular acceptance to subversively sully the races as a part of their agenda of dysgenics; to create the lowest common denominator as the average human being by promoting deleterious alleles.
‘Race denialism’ is the hypothetical point of view that:
Observed group differences between local varieties of Homo sap. are superficial and inconsequential, like the hair color of individuals.
The different statistical profiles of races on BIP traits and social outcomes are entirely caused by historical and social factors. Biology plays no part.
Poor genetics for the many means more power to the enlightened few, by lowering the genetic (and epigenetic) ceiling for average humans you can easily assert a designed eugenicist race above a designed dysgenicist slave race. If the average person lacks the mental faculties to conceive of their own enslavement then those in control have succeeded.
This agenda is promoted through race denialist, dysgenic-promoting propaganda which is widely seen across globalist controlled mediums:
The commanding heights of Western societies – media, schools, politics – are held by race denialists, mainstream anything promotes race denialism in the most one-sided way imaginable.
Race denialism is a social dogma. All respectable people are required to affirm it.
The geographical impact on race and IQ.
Early humans settled different landmasses, these landmasses held different environmental characteristics, which, in turn, affected their occupants.
Harsh northern hemisphere climates forced its occupants to become more adaptable and resourceful, surviving in colder, less hospitable climates (especially in antiquity when the northern hemisphere was even colder) required the development of larger intelligence faculties compared to survival in sub-Saharan Africa where an abundance of regional wildlife and flora meant biological adaptation was less necessary for survival.
Other factors that influenced racial differences besides environmental acclimatization include inbreeding and a lack of genetic variety in closed groups; an often cited rule is the 50/500 rule which states that for wild animals a minimum of 50 individuals is needed to avoid inbreeding depression due to recessive alleles.
Furthermore, a minimum of 500 individuals is needed in order to avoid decreasing genetic variability within the population. This since otherwise the number of new mutations will be lower than effects of random genetic drift which decrease genetic variability. It has been questioned how important a high genetic variability is. For example, there are species of albatrosses which have survived for nearly a million year despite extremely low genetic variation.
A 2010 article stated that couples related as second cousins or closer and their descendants accounted for an estimated 10.4% of the global population. Such marriages were most common in Africa, the Middle East, and west, central, and south Asia. Also, in these regions even couples who regard themselves as unrelated may exhibit high levels of genetic relatedness, because of a long tradition of marriages within clan, tribe, or caste boundaries.
The prevalence of bacteria in warmer climates as opposed to colder climates and the implication on human biology.
One theory for the IQ differences between racial groups comes from how in warmer climates there is more bacteria, in colder climates there is less.
The theory outlines how populations in bacteria-rich environments developed better immune systems rather than better mental faculties. Whereas in colder climates the development of the brain was given more emphasis. This may explain how racial groups from colder climates have weaker immune systems than racial groups from warmer climates.
“Caucasoids and Mongoloids who live in their homelands and in recently colonized regions, such as North America, did not rise to their present population levels and positions of cultural dominance by accident. They achieved all this because their ancestors occupied the most favorable of the earth’s zoological regions, in which other kinds of animals also attained dominance during the Pleistocene. These regions had challenging climates and ample breeding grounds and were centrally located within continental land masses. There general adaptation was more important than special adaptation. Any other subspecies that had evolved in these regions would probably have been just as successful.”