A “Holiness Spiral” in Evolutionary Biology

Eliezer Yudkowsky’s unnerving example of mouse biology:
https://www.lesswrong.com/s/MH2b8NfWv22dBtrs8/p/gDNrpuwahdRrDJ9iY

There is a segregation-distorter on the male sex chromosome of some mice which causes only male children to be born, all carrying the segregation-distorter. Then these males impregnate females, who give birth to only male children, and so on. You might cry “This is cheating!” but that’s a human perspective; the reproductive fitness of this allele is extremely high, since it produces twice as many copies of itself in the succeeding generation as its nonmutant alternative. Even as females become rarer and rarer, males carrying this gene are no less likely to mate than any other male, and so the segregation-distorter remains twice as fit as its alternative allele. It’s speculated that real-world group selection [among reproductively isolated populations] may have played a role in keeping the frequency of this gene as low as it seems to be. In which case, if mice were to evolve the ability to fly and migrate for the winter, they would probably form a single reproductive population, and would evolve to extinction as the segregation-distorter evolved to fixation.

That is, this allele does very well reproductively until it destroys the entire population of which it’s a member because there are no females left. Obviously this example doesn’t involve politics, but it has similar dynamics: Something that does well for the individual (gene or person) in the short run, while eating away at the individual’s own foundations. In the case of the mice it’s a gene that eliminates females; in the case of our current holiness spiral it’s white people shouting that white people are evil and should be attacked. Saying things like that identifies one as safely leftist(*) in the haute reaches of western culture these days. But of course it destroys one’s safety in the long run.

A holiness spiral has the aspect of being in the ocean on a raft, and hacking away at the raft with an axe because it somehow helps you in the short run, even as it guarantees your death in the long run. E.g. there are a bunch of people on the raft, and somehow a convention has gotten established that they single out the person who’s hacking away at the raft with the least enthusiasm and attack him. Everybody wants to hack at the raft at least as enthusiastically as everyone else. If they think about it at all, they’re thinking, “Sure, this behavior will guarantee that we all die eventually, but if I stop hacking I’ll die right now.”

Yudkowsky also mentions the possibility of viruses greedily killing their host before they can propagate to another host. Basically there’s no reproductive benefit to an individual member of the virus from reproducing slowly to keep the host alive: The other viruses also reap the benefit of the “prudent” one’s restraint, and they reproduce faster than the prudent one. So, prudent virus genes are out-selected. Given that, the surprising observation is that any illnesses ever propagate before killing their host. Yudkowsky: “I don’t know if a disease has ever been caught in the act of evolving to extinction, but it’s probably happened any number of times.”


* Comparatively safe. Fortunately, as the holiness spiral becomes ever more insane, it becomes ever less safe even to be a leftist. This reduces the incentive to engage in leftist holiness signaling, so is one of the things which may rescue us as people choose up sides in the impending civil war.

Miscellany 17: “Miscellany” is an anagram of “slimy lance.” Really makes you think.

(1) Happy New Year, bitches!

(2) Me March 2018: Trump will not be impeached over “Russia.”

They can’t and won’t impeach the T-Dawg on “Russia.” They’d have more luck with some parking ticket, something that he actually did. Or they’d have more luck alleging that something legal that he did, is actually illegal. What they can’t and never will do is introduce articles of impeachment about the utterly insane “election fixing” horseshit.

Note I’m not saying they won’t try to impeach him over something – of course they will, if they have the numbers in the House; Trump’s election has them absolutely frantic. I’m saying that it won’t be about the retarded “election meddling” thing.

Called it!

Also: In the “impeachment investigation” vote of Oct./Nov. 2019, not one Republican in the House of Representatives voted for the investigation.

And in the actual vote to impeach, not one GOP House member cucked.

They’re wising up.

(3) Hypothalamus smaller in users of the Pill:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191204090819.htm

You have to be careful about believing academic research these days due to the replication crisis. But it’s plausible that messing with natural bodily processes could have bad effects. In fact that should be the default assumption.

(4) Antifa-linked defendant gets 6 years in brutal baton attack in Portland:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/antifa-linked-defendant-gets-6-years-in-brutal-baton-attack-in-portland-reports

We are not yet in a state of complete lawlessness.

(5) Yet another reason libertarianism is doomed: As has become obvious in recent years,

Individualism is not a war-time ideology.

“The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.”
—Kipling, The Second Jungle Book

(6) Evolutionary psychology:

Genetic Ties May Be Factor In Violence in Stepfamilies
by Jane E. Brody, Feb. 10, 1998

A WOMAN’S live-in boyfriend murders her child fathered by another man. A woman neglects her young stepsister and punishes her so viciously that she dies. A stepfather sexually abuses his wife’s daughter by a former husband.

As these examples drawn from news articles over last year demonstrate, the Cinderella story is hardly a fairy tale. Researchers are finding that the incidence of violence and abuse is vastly greater in stepfamilies than in traditional families in which the children are biologically related to both parents and to one other.

Of course, most stepfamilies do well, despite potential stresses. And plenty of families in which all the children are the progeny of both parents are fraught with violence and despair.

But stepfamilies are at much higher risk than are traditional families. For example, Dr. Martin Daly and Dr. Margo Wilson, evolutionary psychologists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, found that the rate of infanticide was 60 times as high and sexual abuse was about eight times as high in stepfamilies as is in biologically related families.

“We demonstrated a very large excess risk to stepchildren, an increase of thousands of percentage points,” Dr. Daly said in an interview.

Link via Jim’s blog, August 2016: https://blog.jim.com/culture/why-women-are-sleeping-with-chads/

(7) (6) A good quote from Moldbug here:
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/05/ol3-jacobite-history-of-world/

The lesson of history is quite clear. Whether you love the W-force [leftism] or hate it, surrendering to it is not an effective way to resist it. There is no stable point along the left–right axis at which the W-force, having exacted all the concessions to which justice entitles it, simply disappears. Oh, no. It always wants more… The persistence of this delusion [that leftism can be placated] in Anglo-American thought is quite remarkable.

I’m not a fan of Moldbug, but this at least, is a good insight. Everyone on the right now knows that leftism cannot be appeased, but Moldbug got there early.

Yet Another Holiday Memo

BlackBoot

From: Steven Brenner, High School Music Director
To: Michael Porkwit, 9th grade
Re: The Winter Holiday Concert

Michael,

In the carol Gloria in Excelsis Deo, your version of the refrain,

Gloria, in an Exxon station

would not be regarded by anyone as an improvement on the original.

And again, the line in “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” is “God and sinners reconciled.” Your rendering, “Deion Sanders reconciled,” does not even mean anything. I am given to understand that Mr. Sanders was a professional football player some years ago; he certainly was not a public figure at the time this carol was written.

Comment on backstage behavior:

Mrs. Stokes, the mathematics teacher, wasn’t wearing black boots with high heels so she’d “look more domme.” It’s simply practical and stylish footwear given the kind of weather we’ve been having.

She told me about this later and said that, when she firmly corrected you on this point, your response was, “Does this mean no blowjob?” That was way out of line, Mr. Porkwit. I didn’t hear about this until after the concert, or I would have sent you home right then and there. As it is, you are hereby removed from the chorale lineup for the rest of this academic year and will not be receiving course credit for chorus this semester. I am assigning a course grade of F.

I must say I find your behavior discouraging, especially since you’ve ignored the two gentle requests for better comportment that Mrs. Stanton in the Middle School sent you in previous years. Do better, Mr. Porkwit, or it only gets worse from here.

(I also heard a rumor – though I suppose it’s technically none of my business – that you recently attended a breakfast hosted by the local Jewish Community Outreach group, and complained loudly about the lack of bacon on the menu. I don’t know if you thought this was funny, or if it was simple ignorance, but in either case, Michael, you are really testing the limits of everyone’s patience.)

Very sincerely,
Mr. Brenner, High School Music Director

Pro-Natalist Ben Gadwin

I just serendipitously found Ben Gadwin’s excellent pro-natalist Twitter account, https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily


Update: Some of his stuff is actually kinda weird, like his notion that he’ll give all his wealth to his first-born son and nothing to any of his other children. WTF? And I don’t trust this:

Four dates a day? On average? Hard to take that seriously, even if he’s independently wealthy and doesn’t have to work.


A random selection of good stuff from it:

1) https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily/status/1194155323252256768

If your religion doesn’t build healthy, loving, ambitious, and large families that want to spread life to the stars, there’s something wrong with it.

2) https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily/status/1193526079807508480

Dates in Western Europe vs Eastern Europe (I wish I was making these up):
Western Europe: “I’m studying political science. It’s fascinating. I’m learning about critical theory and how capitalism oppresses all of us.”
Eastern Europe: “Feminists are crazy. Why would I want a job when I can stay at home, cook, and raise kids?”

3) Some stories still have happy endings:

Son of psychotically evil woman, who tried to turn him into a girl, will be allowed to attend school as a boy. Next step: Applying the death penalty to his “mother” (who is not even his actual, biological mother).

4) A sad case:

Creator of Sex and the City, single at 60, regrets choosing a career over children as she is now “truly alone.”

5) Normie/Rebel

Normie-Rebel

Not sure I’d even fuck the girl on the left. Holy moly, would I fuck the girl on the right, and I’d cum so hard I’d blow the top of her head off like a shotgun.

Why is fertility lower among high-status women?

Why is fertility lower among high-status women than low-status women? It’s not just a weird unfortunate coincidence. It’s because they’re high status. Female hypergamy means that the number of men a high-status woman regards as worthy of her are smaller. It’s a terrible thing for a woman to be high status. It hurts her reproductive success. And so it hurts the reproductive success of the population of which she’s a member.

Men and women are different in terms of everything, including the effect of their social status on their reproductive success.

Look at human history with Darwinian eyes. (If you’re an evolution denier, look with Chesterton’s Fence eyes.) As far as can be told from history, women are by default lower status than men in all societies that existed up to around 1900. Why? Not because those horrid men forced them all into low-status roles. All? Seriously, all? In every society in the history of the world? Please. Nothing is “all” in the world of social phenomena. No, indubitably there were some societies just like ours in which deluded social innovators allowed and encouraged women to have high social status. Those societies are gone now.

Because those societies in which women had higher or even equal status by default were outbred. They’re not around any more. They didn’t even survive long enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record.


Let us pause to refute some feminist idiocy on this topic. God knows they make it easy.

The fuck-witted feminist account of all this is this: “In earlier eras, men were higher status than women because men— those brutes!— kept women down with overwhelming physical force. But now, in our modern society, this is not relevant any more.” Why not? Anyway, notice how stupid this is, if you just think about it instead of mindlessly repeating it: Men kept women down by physical force? Really? No they didn’t. What the hell? I love this notion that the average woman was thirsting to be a sailor on a whaling ship but the men used violence to prevent her from doing so. Or the average woman yearned to be a statistician in the actuarial department of an insurance company but those violent men beat her senseless until she stopped trying it. Fucking LOL. In fact, it is the opposite: In the modern world it takes a constant barrage of one-sided propaganda just to make some women think they want to do such things.

Also: Were the highest-status men in the last few millennia the ones who were biggest and toughest? Did you get to be Pope or Corporate CEO or College President by beating up other men? Or even credibly threatening to do so? Bitch, please.

Also notice that this whole moronic feminist argument contradicts the other, opposite feminist argument, that women should be in combat positions in the military because they’re just as good in a fight as a man. Well, which is it? Did men use their superiority in physical conflict to keep women down? Or are women just as good in a fight as men?

Feminists. Jesus. Stop trying to make arguments, sugar-tits. You’re just not very good at it. Now quit being such a skirt and get me a beer; I want something to drink while you’re blowing me.


So that “argument” makes no sense. No, the reason we see no historical societies in which women had higher or equal status compared to men, is that they didn’t breed enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record. And the reason for that, or a main reason for it, is that female hypergamy means that high female status is highly contra-reproduction. Lethally so.

The only antidote to the contra-natalist tendency of high female status, that has worked empirically, is a set of social conventions and traditions in which (1) husbands automatically have higher status than wives, and (2) fathers can marry off daughters even if the daughter thinks the prospective husband isn’t good enough for her. In that way the deadly poison of female hypergamy is rendered irrelevant. In a society with these two features, even a girl who is born a heir presumptive to the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland can be induced to squeeze out baby after baby, enough for seven of them to survive to adulthood.

A Woman Fumbles with Female Sexuality

CatalystAd
The authoress of the excerpted post wants you to believe that women would find this guy attractive because he seems like a stable Dad type.

This chick tries to figure out a certain aspect of female sexuality, the attracted-to-irresponsible-cads thing. I quote from her post (editing for brevity) and add a some comments. An interesting aspect of it is that she seems to be honestly trying to figure herself out, but she fails disastrously. It’s amazing how opaque evolution has made women to themselves.

Or maybe she’s just lying. As always on these topics, it’s hard to tell; the distinction between female deception of men, and female self-deception, is fuzzy.

Fuckers Vs. Raisers

One day in a stereotypical medieval town, a bard comes through.

This is a very sexy bard, violet-eyed, good with a lute, and experienced in the ways of women. During his short stay he sleeps with four of the village wenches, and then bounces off to a new village, to seduce more wenches. Years later, a new child with violet eyes is running around. Life goes on.

There are two sexual strategies for men – Fucking and Raising. Fuckers, like our friend the Bard, do the ol’ fuck-and-run. Move frequently, shoot seed everywhere, and hope that this results in violet-eyed toddlers getting raised by other men. Raisers, by contrast, shoot seed into comparatively few women and end up raising the children they produce.

My question then is why are women attracted to Fuckers? Is there any female advantage to this?

Your scenario itself answers this: If you have a caddish violet-eyed son by this man, that son will run around all over the world spraying his, and therefore your, genes around. It’s not a mystery.

Having a child by a Fucker is dangerous – if she doesn’t have a Raiser lined up, then she’s on her own, and historically this is Very Bad News. If she does have a Raiser and he finds out the child isn’t his, again – Very Bad News.

Sure, it has potential downsides, but it also has potential upsides.

So when the Bard fingers his lute, why do all the women around him sigh?

I think their sighs don’t have anything to do with the fact he’s a Fucker – I think it’s because his traits, if they were present in a Raiser, would be ideal. He’s presenting confidence, skill, and high social standing. If a Raiser like that moved into town, all of the women would be trying to wife themselves at him like crazy. The Bard also is a potential Raiser in the women’s eyes, and he probably has to emphasize that idea in order to get her to sleep with him.

Sorry, no. Common experience refutes this idea. Here’s a question for you ladies: What would be your reaction to each of the following statements by the bard? The context is that you’ve been talking to him one-on-one after his performance at the tavern, for about half an hour, and so far you think he’s sooooooo dreamy! Statement #1: “I’m basically looking for a wife. I’m a solid guy, and I want a family.” Statement #2: You ask him if he has a girlfriend, and he gives a knowing smirk and says, “I’m not really the boyfriend type.” The question for you ladies – no lying! – is, Which statement would get your pussy wet? WAIT, STOP! I didn’t ask, Which statement do you think SHOULD get you wet, but Which statement would actually, in reality, get you wet? Never mind; don’t bother answering; every man who studies women objectively already knows the answer.
I have more to say about this at the end of this post.

This is maybe where the trope of “guy tells girl he loves her in order to sleep with her” comes from. [That is in fact the exact opposite of what works in seducing a woman.] Women don’t want to fuck Fuckers [This statement is an outrageous falsehood], but they will fuck Fuckers disguised as Raisers.

Okay I am done writing now but I don’t know how to do a closing paragraph. I don’t really want to learn.


LOL, I like her last two sentences.

Anyway, on Fuckers vs. Raisers, where she says that what a woman really wants is a raiser, and that fuckers only get sex by presenting themselves as raisers: This is blatantly false. I was in five or six bands in high school and college. Yes, this is great for your sex life. But while it’s good for getting laid in any situation, where it works like a nuclear dynamite LSD supernova is when you’re never going to be in that town again, and the girl knows it. It’s a whole ’nother fucking dimension when you’re playing a one-night-only gig. You have to beat the pussy off with a bat in those circumstances.

No girl in those situations was ever under any delusions that I was going to stick around later than the next morning at latest. But they threw themselves at me.

If you haven’t taken the red pill yet, grok that women are sexual creatures. Whenever they act like they’re “offended” that “women are sexualized,” etc., They. Are. Lying. Their. Asses. Off. They are lying. They’re lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying.

Women in reality are much closer to women in porn than is commonly admitted by women, or understood by men.

As is so frequently the case, this post is a fantastic lesson in female delusionality about themselves. “I don’t want a fucker,” she tells herself. “I want a raiser!” Sure, if she’s had a couple of kids by a thug who jetted and now needs a sucker to help support them. But that’s not what she wants sexually. There’s a reason she had a couple of kids by the fly-by-night thug, and NO it wasn’t that she was deceived into thinking he was a raiser. If that were true she would have had the kids by an actual raiser. Funny how most of the time in those situations, the father is a fucker. So she was deceived, was she? Fuckers are better at presenting themselves as raisers than actual raisers are? LOL, no.