Saturday, November 15, 2008

We're Not All Equal Genetically, Either


When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

{ snip }

At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas.

{ snip }

Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.

{ snip }

Certain superficial traits like skin pigmentation have long been presumed to be genetic. But the ability to pinpoint their DNA source makes the link between genes and race more palpable. And on mainstream blogs, in college classrooms and among the growing community of ancestry test-takers, it is prompting the question of whether more profound differences may also be attributed to DNA.

Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.

{ snip }

“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”

NYT


Evolution comes us a surprise to our delusional society.

For too long, we've measured everything in terms of social, economic and political value, and completely ignored reality. The truth is always unpopular because it is more difficult than a symbolic illusion.

My advice is to prepare for this situation, to accept that most people do not want multiculturalism, and to deflect the issue into criticism of politicized science and multiculturalism, so that racism -- racial cruelty, in my view -- does not gain a foothold.

It is not racist to be against multiculturalism.

However, saying "I oppose multiculturalism" is more of a Difficult Reality, where screaming racial slurs is a Pleasant Illusion, so we know which one will win out if we do not combat it.

Stop racism. Accept science and stop multiculturalism. That is the only way out of this mess.

The Key to the Con


The key to a con is not that you trust the conman, but that he shows he trusts you. Conmen ply their trade by appearing fragile or needing help, by seeming vulnerable. [T]he human brain makes us feel good when we help others--this is the basis for attachment to family and friends and cooperation with strangers. "I need your help" is a potent stimulus for action.

{ snip }

Cons often work better when a confederate poses as an innocent bystander who "just wants to help." We are social creatures after all, and we often do what others think we should do.

My laboratory studies of college students have shown that two percent of them are "unconditional nonreciprocators." That's a mouthful! This means that when they are trusted they don't return money to person who trusted them (these experiments are described in my post on neuroeconomics). What do we really call these people in my lab? Bastards. Yup, not folks that you would want to have a cup of coffee with. These people are deceptive, don't stay in relationships long, and enjoy taking advantage of others. Psychologically, they resemble sociopaths. Bastards are dangerous because they have learned how to simulate trustworthiness.

Psychology Today


I trust you to do the right thing and vote for me.

Secretly, you're thinking: I get more out of the deal.

Modern society and democracy will turn us all into unconditional nonreciprocators.

Unhappy People Introvert, Making Themselves More Unhappy


A new study by sociologists at the University of Maryland concludes that unhappy people watch more TV, while people who describe themselves as very happy spend more time reading and socializing. The study appears in the December issue of the journal Social Indicators Research.

Analyzing 30-years worth of national data from time-use studies and a continuing series of social attitude surveys, the Maryland researchers report that spending time watching television may contribute to viewers' happiness in the moment, with less positive effects in the long run.

"TV doesn't really seem to satisfy people over the long haul the way that social involvement or reading a newspaper does," says University of Maryland sociologist John P. Robinson, the study co-author and a pioneer in time-use studies. "It's more passive and may provide escape - especially when the news is as depressing as the economy itself. The data suggest to us that the TV habit may offer short-run pleasure at the expense of long-term malaise."

Science Blog


It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, like all negativity.


  1. Assume negativity.

  2. Compensate for that with "little treats" to make yourself feel better.

  3. Notice that while you've been enjoying your treats, nothing has changed. That makes things suck even more, because time is passing!

  4. Notice you're depressed, so go back to step #2.



Repeat until death -- of individual, group, civilization, species, or ecosystem -- occurs.

What Makes Quality Heavy Metal?

It's not the guitars, or the words, or the addition of a flute or other hipster ironic instruments -- it's the soul:


Metal is Romantic art, much as the novel Frankenstein or the opera Parsifal are: discovery of transcendent meaning in life by embracing its struggle and suffering as means to a higher end, an idea beyond material satisfaction or fear. To those who see the greatness of this idea, it is a worldview and a life-philosophy, and metal is one of its voices.

When we say metal expresses this idea, we are speaking only secondarily of imagery and lyrics (which mainstream academics prefer to study because they're easy). We speak of the music and the spirit it evokes. Much like songs can convey sadness, fear, anger or hope, like the leitmotifs of Wagner different impulses are encoded in metal music that together suggest a Romantic worldview.

As art, heavy metal music is unique among popular genres for this viewpoint. What makes sonic art "metal" is its expression of this spirit more than any dogma or musical conceits; after all, other bands have appropriated metal riffs for years but without grasping this idea, much like innumerable Hollywood soundtracks have borrowed from Wagner without capturing his ideal.

When a metal band ceases to make Romantic art and becomes another voice for the easy, non-transcendent answers of life -- material comfort, self-satiation, revengeful morality or simply self-obsession -- it is no longer metal, but an imitation of metal, much like advertising jingles often "sound like" a genre without having its artistry or ideas.

NUSA


Interesting analysis: what makes the music good is its organizing or central principle, because when that is achieved, it's easy to make the music expressive, which is what separates good riffs from dumb ones.

Multiculturalism Creates Pity Which Creates Unstable Politics

Interesting opinion from the always-polite and always challenging Jared Taylor:


The presidential election of 2008 brings to mind another vote that took place 16 years ago in South Africa: the referendum in which whites voted to turn power over to blacks. Though it has long been overshadowed by the 1994 general elections that brought the African National Congress (ANC) to power, it was the referendum of March 17, 1992, that ended white rule.

{ snip }

They feared international isolation more than they feared black rule; whites voted 68 to 31 percent for “continuation of the reform process.” Nor was this a decision forced upon Afrikaners by white English-speakers. Though some militant groups boycotted the referendum, all election analysts agree that a majority of Afrikaners voted “yes,” and some even believe there was more support among Afrikaners than British South Africans. Whites therefore had the chance to keep their country, but gave it away. That vote ensured the ANC victory of 1994 and everything that has followed.

{ snip }

Fifty-five percent of whites wanted John McCain to be their president but it was blacks and Hispanics who got the president they wanted, not whites. Every year, as the number of non-whites increases, whites will have less say about who rules them.

{ snip }

If their numbers continue to decline, whites will not get the schools, the neighborhoods, the culture—and ultimately, the country—they want.

Perhaps it is because whites have brought diminished status upon themselves that we are expected to take pride in it rather than fight to reverse it. As Paul Krugman explained helpfully in the New York Times, “If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.” This means there is something wrong with at least 55 percent of whites, but that has been the Times’s position for years.

Mr. Krugman’s joy in Mr. Obama’s victory is shared by whites all around the world. “We have great hopes that we are standing at the dawn of a new era,” wrote the Norwegian daily Aftenposten. “One Giant Step for Mankind” read the front page of England’s Sun newspaper. A headline on the London Telegraph website declared: “Barack Obama Victory Allows Britain to Love US Again.” The Times modestly headlined its election story, “The New World.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada spoke of Mr. Obama’s “tremendous, historic” victory, and the Toronto Sun called it “an historic milestone like no other.” Le Monde in Paris noted that “from Left to Right, [French] politicians have been competing for superlatives with which to praise the election of Barack Obama.” Milan’s Corriere della Sera wrote that Mr. Obama was “the man who can save America from utter breakdown.”

This chorus of rejoicing has eerie parallels to how the world’s whites welcomed black rule in South Africa. In 1993, Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize for their new, “power-sharing” constitution. Mary McGrory of the Washington Post gushed only slightly more than most when she wrote in her May 12, 1994 column that “Nelson Mandela has won what the [Washington] Post calls ‘one of history’s sweetest victories over racial subjugation’ and he is going to keep it clean and beautiful so that newspaper readers will think they are reading scripture when they read dispatches from South Africa that cannot be read except through tears.”

Fourteen years later—just 14 years later—does anyone have second thoughts? Under white rule, South Africa was climbing steadily in the UN’s Human Development Index. It reversed course the first year of black rule and has dropped ever since. South Africa can no longer keep accurate crime statistics, but it is unquestionably one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anyone who can afford to lives in a private fortress, and carjacking is so common it is considered foolish to stop at a red light after dark. Amazon.com limits shipping to South Africa because postal workers steal so many packages. Interpol reports that South Africa has the highest rape rate in the world—and the highest AIDS rate. About one-fifth of South African men admit they have raped a woman, and an estimated 35 percent of the armed forces have AIDS. Race preferences for blacks are so ruthless that approximately 50 percent of white men are self-employed and nearly a million whites have emigrated, most citing crime and race preferences.

{ snip }

Whites are placing their destinies in the hands of others. The South Africans did it suddenly; we are doing it gradually.

AR


If this were a mainstream media article, you would expect a disclaimer here telling you how much I do not agree with Jared Taylor and his politically/socially incorrect viewpoint. That alone should tell you something.

I think if we focus too much on black and white the issue becomes cloudy. Instead, I think we should focus on two groups: the demographic majority, and those who want the power now held by the demographic majority (this second group is comprised of members of different ethnicities, including the majority of it, which is of the same group as the demographic majority).

Multiculturalism cannot work because it destroys consensus. It is a form of pluralism, or the idea that we can agree to disagree -- on fundamental issues and values, including their means of transmission, "culture" -- and still be OK as a nation. We destroy consensus, but we keep the benefits of society, so everyone thinks this is a good idea.

History shows us that it's a path to destruction, because without consensus, it's impossible to measure actions against an abstract yardstick. As a result, politics becomes balkanized and the question of the day becomes: "what are you gonna do for me?" and how to increase personal wealth, personal convenience, etc. at the expense of the collective.

The ethnic issue merely complicates this: those within the demographic majority who oppose consensus, generally because they are afraid of reality, use the pitied, minority ethnicity as moral justification for destroying the demographic majority.

The minority ethnicity then does what any group would do: destroys what the demographic majority created, and replaces it with something more appropriate for the demographic minority.

It's simple math when you look at it outside of black and white. It would happen with Swedes and Russians mixed in a nation; Chinese and Vietnamese; Christians and Muslims. Any two or more groups in a pluralism are in competition. The focus should not be on ethnicity, but on the instability of pluralism as a mathematical model for civilization.

It's Not Conformity if We Intend Equality


U.S. schoolchildren have long been able to opt out of reciting the pledge for religious reasons. But unlike other pledge controversies, this one centers on how and where schoolchildren say it, not whether they should.

{ snip }

School officials agreed to resume it as a daily exercise, but not in the classroom.

"We don't want to isolate children every day in their own classroom or make them feel they're different," said Principal Michaela Martin.

AZC


"We don't want to...make them feel they're different" is the most important statement of this article. The idea of tolerance is that every behavior becomes legitimized, which quickly means that any behavior outside of the lowest common denominator is a special need.

Intelligence is a special need. Honesty is a special need. Belief in anything other than personal convenience is a special need. And yes, token patriotism is also.

While the pledge of allegiance was never my favorite part of school, it was a ritual that served a useful role: affirming why we were a nation, what we believed in, and in part saying thanks to the government for our day of schooling.

At this point, with schools eroded to little more than babysitting and work process indoctrination, and the country divided because liberalism has encouraged it to pull in so many different directions unity is impossible, none of the above really applies.


The distance between those two Grant Park scenes says a lot about how American liberalism fell, and why in the Obama era it could become — once again — America's ruling creed. The coalition that carried Obama to victory is every bit as sturdy as America's last two dominant political coalitions: the ones that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. And the Obama majority is sturdy for one overriding reason: liberalism, which average Americans once associated with upheaval, now promises stability instead.

{ snip }

America's giant industrial monopolies, the progressives believed, were turning capitalism into a jungle, a wild and lawless place where only the strong and savage survived. By the time Roosevelt took office during the Great Depression, the entire ecosystem appeared to be in a death spiral, with Americans crying out for government to take control. F.D.R. did — juicing the economy with unprecedented amounts of government cash, creating new protections for the unemployed and the elderly, and imposing rules for how industry was to behave.

Time


Translation: liberalism keeps the peace, instead of forcing us to make difficult decisions over whether we support pleasant illusions or long term difficult realities.

It is a short-term bargain, which makes sense given that when nations turn to liberalism, they are generally moribund in their final chapter.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Liberalism tried to set us free. It failed.


Liberalism has much to its credit. But as John Stuart Mill said about Christianity, "all truths need fundamental re-examination from time to time"; and if that was true of Christianity in the 18th century, I think that it is just as true of liberalism in the 21st. For today the great and the good, at any rate in the west, intone their belief in liberal pieties as mindlessly as their predecessors in the 18th century proclaimed their belief in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

Take freedom of the press. The liberal argument for the importance of a free press was that it gave voters the necessary information on which they could vote intelligently. Of all the British newspapers today, only the Guardian even tries to do that. The rest concentrate on misinformation or even disinformation - sophisticated and clever disinformation in the case of the broadsheets, and untreated sewage in the case of the tabloids. So, far from helping to guide the reader into the real world - the world for which he or she is meant to take responsibility - they offer him or her a way out of that real world into one of fantasy, muddying rather than clarifying the democratic waters.

The same goes for that other liberal piety, the autonomy of the individual. Of course this was an important principle 200 years ago when the individual had far too few rights. But today it is very plain that man standing alone - as against man locked into society - is beginning to get too many rights. So what was once a noble principle has been degraded into a crass and selfish form of "me-firstism": an attitude wholly incompatible with the team spirit required to make any institution - family, school, college, regiment, hospital, police force or even government department - work. Even the foreign service has been infected, with our former ambassador in Washington not hesitating to tell tales out of school about his colleagues.

The Guardian


The problem is that freedom is a negative: freedom from something, and if that something isn't defined, it becomes freedom from everything, including reality itself.

Better to have a positive goal, like "create a society that betters ancient Rome." That's healthy. Liberalism... not so much.

Science is a Religion, Too


Both religion and science start with basic assumptions that cannot be proved but are taken on faith. Here I note that one basic assumption that is rather common in both enterprises is the assumption that in comparing different hypotheses that all equally explain the observations, the simpler hypotheses are more probable (Occam's razor or the law of parsimony). That is, explanations should be made as simple at possible (though no simpler, since then they would not explain what is observed).

NYU


Anything can become a religion if:

* People put faith in it as an organizing principle
* They see anything that is not-It as the enemy
* They feel a personal reward for believing in it
* They believe it is correct above all else

That's what defines a religion; it's also what defines a cult.

In the hands of the Crowd, ideas get dumbed down and become religious, and then are used to attack and divide the social order so that individuals in the Crowd feel less likely to find themselves at fault by community standards.

Secular humanism is a religion. Liberalism is a religion.

Economics is a religion. Science is a religion.

Drugs can be a religion. Popular culture is a religion.

Is everything a religion? Depends on the person doing the interpretation. Smart people have one religion, which is reality, and they see everything else as a viewpoint to that end; dumb and/or confused people run from religion to religion, never seeing the common truth and lacking non-elected, free-to-speak-their-mind leaders to guide them.

The Coming Divide: Holists/Traditionalists versus Reductionists

In an otherwise ordinary article's comments thread, some sanity emerged.

Here's the article:


Prince Charles comes in for criticism for all sorts of reasons, in particular from those who want to abolish the monarchy and replace it with an elected head of state. Those campaigning on that issue sometimes find it necessary also to attack the opinions Prince Charles holds, as if that will somehow strengthen their case. In the area where I work, campaigning to protect the environment and to move farming and food away from environmentally destructive, cruel and unhealthy systems that destroy small farms and agricultural jobs, Prince Charles has got it right. His interventions have made a real difference.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, anyone suggesting it was wrong for us to use the seas around our coast as a dumping ground for human shit, chemical discharges, and as an out-of-sight, out-of-mind dump site for toxic and nuclear waste, was seen as at worst mad, and at best irrelevant. In those days, Prince Charles was one of the only public figures to say what I think most British people actually feel, namely that you shouldn't dump your rubbish in the sea. This is true whether you're a family picnicking on the beach, a water company getting rid of sewage, or British Nuclear Fuels dumping radioactive waste. When the generally conservative British media, and our broadly anti-environmental political and business establishment, were ignoring or dismissing the environmental case, an intervention by Prince Charles really made a real difference.

The Guardian


Here are selected comments, showing the side of the issue that argues for holism and traditionalism -- against the modern majority, who all have the same opinion expressed different ways, which is basically that equality and science will dominate nature and that's a good thing, so we can get on to Progress which although it has made us miserable so far might magically make us happy some day.

I was impressed by how literate and aware these people are.


The only advantage of an elected head of state is that you can get rid of him/her when his/her term is finished, save if he/she wins reelection. Otherwise he/she is always in watch to defend his/her position and rarely dares to say his/her mind. In other words, it's a politician and its world is all about politics. Prince Charles may be interesting on many issues, including the environment, and that's good. He can speak his mind withing the rules of protocol. That's better to have a proffesional liar on top who is always picking up the nicest words to lie you all the time.


Guardian: Comment is Free


Britain would be in far better hands if Prince Charles or his father were able to rule. I don't agree with them on everything, but they would prioritise the environment and would genuinely attempt to solve the problems the nation faces rather than looking to make personal profits and be bought by corporate interests.


Guardian: Comment is Free


I come from The Netherlands, a country that is not known for having a Conservative Party. The Dutch, in general, are very fond of their Royal Family. We stick by them for we think that they are a better bet than any President, and decidely cheaper too.


Guardian: Comment is Free


As for the argument about homeopathy and organics not being falsifiable as to their claims, isn't this the whole problem, as was pointed out earlier? Namely, the reductionist model of scientific evaluation is flawed and a holistic model is needed.


Guardian: Comment is Free


The cost of the Royal Familiy (they are part-privatised. Chas's Clarence House operation is paid for by income from the Duchy of Cornwall) is around 33m GBP per year.

That's just a third of the annual administration costs of Central London's Congestion-Charge zone.

But you might argue we have made a profit from the Royals for a very long time. The swapping of the Crown estates for the Civil list under George III has raked in money for the taxpayer.

Last year the CE made £211m, which means the taxpayer made nearly 180m GBP after paying the civil list.


Guardian: Comment is Free


However, I think you underestimate the irresponsibility of some scientists and agribusiness in general. They will always consider profit before long term health of the soil. There probably exist non-organic farming techniques that when used skillfully will preserve soils long term but this aspect is studiously ignored as it is complex and might reduce short term profits.

Don't just pretend soil degradation doesn't exist.


Guardian: Comment is Free


There are two types of science and medicine. The prevailing one is a mechanistic model; it is exploitative, reductionist and anti-Nature; it has a tunnel view and lacks depth and history. It is supported by the establishment, by big business and by most politicians. It has lots of money, power and influence. New biotechnologies are brought in without adequate testing or responsible discussion, and sometimes research is falsified.

The other model is inclusive and holistic and sees all of life as part of the vast web of Nature. Everything is connected and interdependent; it is the view of quantum physics. Prince Charles talks to independent scientists who are not financed by big business. They tell him we shall lose the fight to control Nature.

He is better informed than most "expert" scientists and politicians because those who counsel him are unprejudiced and balanced. He is a visionary with a lot of courage to stand up to the powerful and the sneering. This is how he has been able to do his thing with the Princes Trust, supporting young people, small businesses, sustainable
agriculture and integrated health care. We are so fortunate to have a truly Radical Prince!

Reductionist science is unsustainable. Why is it so contemptuous of holistic science (feeling threatened?). That's too bad, for it is the science of the future.


Guardian: Comment is Free


I think this is a classic example of a subject where some rationalists can't separate rationalism from reductionism. Earth's ecology is an incredibly complex system and there seem to be some who need evidence to prove that a certain perturbation in that system will produce a negative effect before conceding that it might be unwise to apply that perturbation. They seem to think that is an equivalent position to "I
don't believe in things without evidence". It is not.


Guardian: Comment is Free


There are people on this blog who simply cannot see past the great god of Science.

There has been a lot of talk about developing countries gaining from the introduction of GM food, but that may simply not be the case. You take small farm, with farmers who understand the capabilities of their land... farms with a rich bio-diversity and fairly high productivity.

You then bring in GM food companies, who demand large-scale industrial farming... with no interest in understanding the soil and climate. They then create uniformity in crop and method. The result is a loss of bio-diversity and, quite possibly, crop productivity.

Where is the winner there? Only Monsanto, not the poor of the country.


Guardian: Comment is Free


I think we should be grateful to the Prince for bringing a social element to the debate, and not just relying on Scientists, who are very rarely objective in such matters due to the huge amounts of money hidden away behind the judgments they make.


Guardian: Comment is Free


Do you deny the harm that insecticides do to soil microbiology and the wider ecosystem? Do you recognise that the organisms within ecosystems exist in a delicate balance and that if we disturb them we run the risk of dangerous consequences? The radically reduced numbers of bees is a good example, without them huge numbers of commercial species will become unproductive because of lack of pollenators. We don't know why this is happening in many cases but we are attacking ecosystems from so many angles and they are so complex that without an overarching respect for the idea that we should try our best not to disturb these equilibria vital to our survival sooner or later we will pay the price.


Guardian: Comment Is Free



No, we're waiting for any good scientific (or economic) evidence that GM food is in any way beneficial, apart from Monsanto shareholders. Just as we're waiting for any evidence that modern, oil-intensive agri-business is any benefit to anyone except the owners of said businesses. Because you've fallen into the trap that all organic farming naysayers do; namely, to assume that the real point of organic farming is to do with nutrition or taste, whereas it's actually to do with biodiversity and good stewardship.


Guardian: Comment is Free

The type of viewpoint we see these people expounding is the future of Conservatism:

* Conservationist
* Holist
* Non-Democratic
* Has a cultural goal which we use to direct science, economy and social pressures.

Only this can save humanity from itself.

Eugenics in Communist China




Article on Eugenics, positive and negative, in Communist China - and it retains the Creative Darwinism of the much maligned TDL.

By Sun Dong-Sheng Jinan ARMY INSTITUTE, PEOPLE’S REPUBOLIC OF CHINA

While striving to control the growth of population in China, our nation’s family planners have simultaneously taken serious note of the importance eugenics represents as a field of inquiry. Eugenics is currently being promoted in China. Although literally it means,”superior births,” the essence of eugenics can be found in the expression, “the birth of that which is better,” that is to say, the birth of children whose prenatal characteristics are excellent. Naturally, if one wishes to see that every family is able to produce healthy, intelligent children, then it is necessary to study eugenics, to popularize the knowledge of this field and to master its principles.

1. Eugenics is the science of the ways in which the genetic constitution of man can be improved. Eugenics is divided into two branches. The first of these is that which is preventive in nature. This,”subdivision, ” of eugenics seeks to carry out research with the view of determining ways by which the birth of unhealthy offspring in generations to come can be avoided. Its point of departure is “disease” prevention. The second subdivision of eugenics is that which is progressive in nature. In essence, its research efforts are undertaken in an attempt to determine the means by
which the birth of future generations composed of outstanding genetic make-up can be brought about. Both subdivisions of eugenics are devoted to the improvement of man’s hereditary nature. The field of eugenics is therefore the science of improving the inherited character of man.

A. Eugenics, its origins and development. Eugenics was first brought into being by the English biologist and anthropologist, Francis Galton. Some 100 years have now passed since its inception. While observing the phenomena of biological inheritance during the 1870’s, Galton discovered that many of man’s diseases were transmitted to later generations. At the same time, he noted that the positive physical and mental attributes of husband and wife would be inherited by their offspring, male or female. In view of this observation, Galton advanced the doctrine which postulated that selective marriages could improve the human species by weeding out those marriages
characterized by the poor qualities of their participants and fostering the increase of those having excellent characteristics. In 1883, he christened this doctrine eugenics. The American, Curt Stem, brought eugenics into its modern form by subdividing its general field of inquiry into the aforementioned branches in 1960.(1) Historically, the development of eugenics has passed through a circuitous route indeed. In the 1930’s, eugenics provided proponents of both fascism and racism with a splendid opportunity. Unabashedly, eugenics was co-opted to promote racism. Hitler openly proclaimed that the Aryan race possessed the finest genetic qualities. while encouraging marriages between members of the Aryan race, the Nazi leader oversaw the condemnation of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Gypsies to the concentration camps where mass exterminations were carried out. These genocidal acts gave rise to worldwide opposition and condemnation. Misunderstandings arose and eugenics was, perforce, viewed as a science which at heart served only the goals of racial discrimination.

Eugenics thus became a forbidden field in the minds of many people and remained so for a long time. In addition to the above-described social history of eugenics, specialists in the field came to look at questions from a purely biological standpoint; undue emphasis was placed on the biological nature of man, and factors pertaining to his social nature were generally overlooked. This was particularly true with regard to questions concerning the inheritance of intelligence. Eugenics was to fall into a quagmire because I.Q. was taken as the only standard of intelligence. In
actuality, the intelligence of man is the result of the interaction of prenatal-genetic and postnatal-social factors. By relying solely on intelligence tests, it is exceedingly difficult to determine the extent to which both genetic and social influences, as well as the role of the individual, contribute to the aggregate result we call intelligence. (2) Due to the above noted reasons, not an inconsiderable number of people came to lose confidence in the scientific nature of eugenics and, as a result, much time was to pass without further questions being raised about it in China.

In recent years, however, the requirements of modern science, technology and production and the speed with which their development has taken place have resulted in increasing societal demands for a population with attributes of a high quality. Moreover, at the same time both the number and kinds of genetic diseases have been multiplying. This situation has led to eugenics being placed more distinctly in front of peoples from diverse nations. China is in this respect no exception, and the People’s Republic of China has once again begun to regard this field with serious concern.

Our country is increasing its research efforts in this field and popularizing its findings.

B. The theoretical basis for eugenics is genetics. So as to form a clear and definite picture of this theoretical basis, it is necessary, first, to examine briefly genetics as a separate field. To begin, we can divide genetics into two general parts.

a) Heredity.
For example, the daughter of the Zhang family resembles her mother. The son of the Li family looks like his father, while the grandson of this family resembles his paternal grandfather and a nephew looks like his uncle, etc. All of these are examples of genetic phenomena. The philosopher Wang Ting-Xiang of the Sung dynasty once noted that if an individual did not resemble his father, then he would look like his mother. Subsequent generations would surely have both the physique as well as the facial appearance of their ancestors. The father of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, also noted that children inevitably display certain characteristics derived from both parents and their ancestors further back. The process of transmitting this kind of biological constitution and physiological function among organisms from generation to generation is thus what is known as heredity.

b) Variation.
Whether we speak of the daughter of the Zhang family or the son of the Li family, there will always be characteristics which do not resemble either those of the mother or those of the father. A colloquial expression holds that,”a woman who gives birth to 9 children, the 10 of them will still all be different.” Even if the birth of twins comes to pass, there will also be (some) differences between them.(3) This phenomenon is what is called variation. Genetics is thus a science which studies the laws of heredity and variation. Yet one might ask why eugenics would take genetics as its theoretical foundation.

The answer to this question lies in the fact that the multiplicity of man has been brought about by the processes of heredity and variation. From the gibbon, to tailless ape, to contemporary man, variation has been a condition of evolution; without variation in living organisms, evolution and the rise of modern man would not have come to pass. The human species has traversed one hundred centuries and one thousand generations. (4) That man is still man is the consequence of heredity. Had there been no heredity, but only variation, mankind early onwards would have evolved into a very different form. However it is necessary to come to terms with the fact that the genes transmit both beneficial and harmful qualities to subsequent generations. Variation can eliminate the undesirable aspects of man’s natural constitution, and it can likewise cause an increase in harmful qualities experienced generations later.

In light of this, we must learn the laws of both heredity and variation. In so doing, we will be able to develop those factors which are beneficial to mankind. By fostering the growth of those attributes which are inherently good, and eliminating those features which are decidedly bad, populations could thus increase gradually in number and quality, and the consequences of eugenics could see fruition. From this overall standpoint, it is not difficult to see that genetics serves as the theoretical foundation of eugenics.

Some claim, however, that the co-option of genetics as the research foundation from which to conduct studies in eugenics implies a strictly hereditarian view of man. This view is erroneous. Eugenics in fact emphasizes the cardinal functions which both the objective environment and subjective forces play in man’s health and development. It must be borne in mind, furthermore, that our genetic foundation underpins intelligence, physical strength, life span, and other aspects of human health. The outstanding gifts of talented individuals are a joint function of both constitutional and post-natal factors. Our genetic foundation determines the possibility of becoming gifted, while the social environment and subjective forces inherent in one’s post-natal conditions are the subsequent decisive factors which determine whether or not the potential for such a gift can be realized.

With the view of increasing the possibilities for man to become more gifted, the results of eugenic research are directed toward more fully providing for that end. With genetics as its basis, the field of eugenics is established on an objective, materialistic foundation. In view of this, eugenics can hardly be considered as strictly hereditarian and should be viewed simply in a materialistic vein. At the present time, genetics has established that the material foundation of both heredity and variation is the gene. It is well known that the cell constitutes the most basic unit of the human body. The basic structure of the cell includes the membrane, the cytoplasm, and the nucleus. The nucleus of the cell is itself composed of various structures and component parts.

Among these are the chromosomes, which control heredity and variation. The chromosomes are a group of clava of various sizes. Only at the time when the cell divides can we observe chromosomes under a powerful microscope. Their most important component is a kind of molecular substance, deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. Heredity’s smallest, most basic unit is the gene. While the messengers of inheritance are genes, the chromosome is the storehouse of the gene. The gene is the smallest molecular component of DNA. Within its internal alkali lies the sequential order which contains the genetic code. The messages of inheritance are passed through these genetic codes on to later generations. This system is somewhat similar to the messages sent by coded telegrams from one party to another. Actually, without the gene, inheritance of traits would be impossible. In sum, the material foundation for both heredity and variation lies in the gene. Because every chromosome has countless numbers of genes, the impact of a chromosome abnormality on descendants is significantly greater than that of a gene abnormality.

There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in the normal cell. Twenty-two pairs are regular chromosomes common to both males and females However, one pair is that which determines the sex of the individual. For males and females they are different. We use symbols to express the nature of the sex chromosome. The male sex chromosome is
labeled Y, while that of the female is known as X. The number of chromosomes in the human cell nucleus is permanently fixed. If it were otherwise, an abnormality would appear. For example, if a human being were to have more than two #21 chromosomes, a deformity would occur. Congenital dementia would be one manifestation, for instance. A woman having one less X chromosome would suffer from glandular hypoplasia, manifesting itself as dwarfism, insufficient development, etc. Hereditary diseases which result from changes in the number and construction of chromosomes are called
chromosome abnormalities. Such abnormalities can come from either side, male or female, and can also originate from both sides at the same time.

With regard to marriage and reproduction, we must carefully consider genetic factors; this is because genetic diseases transmitted to offspring are intimately related to the heredity of their mother and father, and to that of their forefathers as well. With respect to mental disorders, for example, one per cent of a population develops schizophrenia. Should either parent be so afflicted, the rate of schizophrenic illness for later generations reaches some 12%. Should both parents be diagnosed as schizophrenic, the rate of illness for subsequent generations climbs to a high of 39%.(5) According to an investigation of one clan where a certain individual suffered from a mental disorder, out of 6 generations of directly related and collaterally related individuals comprising 73 members, 25 were afflicted with mental disease, or 34.2%. The closer the tie of blood, the greater the possibility of affliction. This makes it abundantly clear that the factors of heredity must be carefully considered when questions of marriage and reproduction are under consideration. One must know, for example, whether either of the marriage partners has genetic ailments or a family history of hereditary disease. Those suffering from such critical illnesses as, for example, leprosy or nervous disorders, should not marry. Individuals afflicted with, for example, acute infectious diseases, tuberculosis, and serious heart, liver, or kidney ailments, should refrain from marriage pending treatment and cure. Still other
individuals with ailments may marry but should not procreate. Those allowed to have children should pay special attention to the physician’s instructions during pregnancy. They should undergo a prenatal diagnosis to prevent an abnormal birth. It is especially important to point out how inappropriate marriages are which take place between relatives, i.e., marriages between siblings - brothers and sisters - as well as marriages between collateral relatives within the third degree of consanguinity (that is, marriages between first cousins and between uncles and nieces).(6)

According to statistics, the incidence of congenital and genetic disease among the issue of marriages consummated between relatives was some 150 times that among offspring of unrelated individuals. The death rate of the offspring of closely related parents was more than three times that of offspring of unrelated parents. What accounts for such statistics? Genetics has shown that the chromosomes within the nucleus of the cell are the sites of the genes of heredity. Half of these are passed down from the father, with the remaining half from the mother. When both mother and father possess the same harmful genes, and these genes are mixed together, an unhealthy infant will be the result. Within the normal cell exists at least 50,000 genes; there are already some 2,600 kinds of genetic diseases and some 300 types of chromosome diseases known to man. Every person has individual genes which are harmful. However, under conditions where marriage partners are not closely related, it is exceedingly unlikely for both sides to have the same pernicious genes. Should one side possess one or many destructive genes, it is not necessarily the case that the corresponding gene of the other side shares the same defect. If they marry, the defective gene of the one side will be subsumed by the normal gene of the other side, and the infant will still be healthy. Marriages between close relatives are quite different, however. As they share a common ancestry, the opportunities for receiving similar defective genes are significantly greater. For example, surprisingly 1/8 of the genes in first cousins are the same; 1/32 of the genes in second cousins are held in common. Should these individuals marry each other, it would be much easier for a match of defective genes to take place than would be the case normal; the birth of an unhealthy or abnormal child would be the likely result. A popular saying during China’s,”Warring States Period,” held that the child of a man and woman having the same last name would not thrive. In recent years, genetic specialists have calculated that the complete prohibition of cousin marriages would result in a 20% drop in the rate of births of infants who are congenitally deaf mutes. It would also cause a decline of some 15% in the rate of infants born afflicted with adolescent amaurotic
idiocy. As can readily be seen, the prohibition against marriages between close relatives is in keeping with the tenets of eugenics.

The above makes obvious that eugenics possesses considerable significance for mankind. In striving to produce better offspring, a significant number of countries are promulgating eugenic rules and regulations explicitly prohibiting marriages between close relatives as well as marriages between and reproduction by people suffering from genetic and other disorders.(7)

China’s new marriage law also includes eugenic provisions. Marriages between people directly or collaterally related within three generations are expressly prohibited. Persons who are afflicted with leprosy and who have not received treatment and been cured, as well as with other illnesses the nature of which is deemed by medical professors to make marriage inadvisable for those so afflicted, will be prohibited from wedlock. But these measures are still inadequate. As eugenic research becomes widespread and acquires depth, the legal code of China will include more regulations
concerning the ways by which the idea of healthier offspring can be given reality.

II. Eugenics: preventive and progressive methods by which healthier offspring can be achieved. A. Measures which are preventive in character. Genetic consultation. Physicians or specialists who advise persons suffering from hereditary illness, as well as their family members, are providing what is called genetic consultation. Individuals with normal health do not ordinarily seek genetic consultation. However, where any of the following 8 conditions obtain, they should do so: 1. persons who have
given birth to children with genetic diseases or congenital malformation, e.g., infants diagnosed as having congenital dementia, cerebrum hypoplasia, congenital heart disease, and ailments of the spinal column; 2. a history of hereditary illness in one’s family, or the birth of abnormal children among persons directly or collaterally related; 3. marriages between close relatives; 4. pregnancies after the age of 35; 5. exposure to chemical or radioactive substances, or having had a viral infection, during the period between the first four and seven weeks of pregnancy; 6. pregnant women with hyperthyroidism, diabetes, asthma, epilepsy, or related medical syndromes; 7. pregnant women suffering from excess amniotic fluid; 8. indications of
amenorrhoea or repeated miscarriages. On the basis of a detailed history of illnesses experienced by both male and female sides, and after considering the genealogy of the subject, his or her physical examination and the results of laboratory tests, the physician may determine whether the offspring could suffer from hereditary illness and make a final judgment on the probability of its occurrence. If the danger is relatively small, then, on the basis of the overall situation, the physician can determine if the pregnancy should be allowed to continue to term. On the other hand, should the danger be comparatively great, it would be better to have an abortion. This will prevent the birth of a defective child.

B. Prenatal Diagnosis.

Diagnoses carried out with respect to the existence of genetic illness or congenital abnormality in the fetus is called prenatal diagnosis. There are many specific procedures. For example, laboratory tests of the mother’s blood or urine may determine whether or not the fetus has infant haemolysis or prenatal metabolic illness; by carrying out an amnion puncture, that is, by extracting a small amount of amniotic fluid from the mother’s uterus, an examination can indicate whether the fetus suffers from chromosome variation or some other genetic and congenital disease. Prenatal diagnosis is not needed for all pregnant women. What is important is that women undergo the aforementioned genetic inquiry and consultation. Should the physician feel that this kind of examination is in the best interests of everyone involved, then a prenatal diagnosis will be made. Prenatal diagnosis and genetic consultation are, as a consequence, often done at the same time. C. Precautionary measures against the effects of harmful environmental agents. Many genetic illnesses as well as deformed children are not the result of hereditary factors. Instead, they are the consequences of parental exposure to harmful environmental agents. Among the most harmful of influences in the environment are radiation, pathogenic bacteria, and chemical products. Individually these agents are able to induce abnormalities; they can introduce into the human body, offspring, and the genes themselves, carcinogens; they can cause mutations. It has been discovered that among all the persons born with congenital defects, some 20% have resulted from exposure to various kinds of environmental substances capable of inducing change. Approximately 60% of all cases are due to both genetic factors and exposure to a damaging environment. High blood pressure and malignant tumors are examples of the latter. In light of the above, we should take preventive measures so as to guard against the danger of such substances. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, we must endeavor to take extra precautionary measures in this regard. For instance, one must not come into contact with poisons or be exposed to radiation. One must guard against such infectious diseases as urticaria and influenza. One must not abuse medicines. Hormones, sulphanilamide (SN), tetracyclines and streptomycin all can cause damage to the cranial nerve or other abnormalities in the fetus. The physician’s directions concerning the use of medicines must be strictly followed. Furthermore, both smoking and drinking should be avoided. For the pregnant woman who smokes and drinks, a miscarriage, an abnormal fetus, or the development of congenital heart disease, is not unlikely. Lest we should forget, both the mother and the fetus are affected similarly by the smoking of the husband. Drinking can lead to poor growth and development of the offspring. Excessive drinking by a pregnant woman can give rise to fetus alcoholism syndrome manifesting itself in the formation of obstructions in the central nervous system and
the emergence of many kinds of abnormalities. In the past few decades, the incidence of congenital illnesses and abnormal births has increased steadily year by year.(8) One of the principal reasons for this trend is the growing seriousness of environmental pollution. Many of the mutations in the genes resulting from polluted substances are recessive or latent in nature. They require generations to accumulate before becoming manifest.

Because of this, in light of the long-term benefits to be derived by all of the peoples and all of mankind, the work of maintaining an ecological balance and safeguarding the environment is absolutely imperative.( 9) D. Measures to enhance the birth of healthier offspring. Controlling individual development. The process by which the fertilized egg develops from the embryonic state to an infant is known as individual, or specific, development. Controlling individual development means being able to improve the living environment during the course of embryonic and infant
development in order that those factors making for better health can have a fuller, more complete impact on the development of the fetus and infant. For example, during the period of embryonic growth, if one were to employ such means as were available to cause a spurt in brain cell multiplication and reproduction, or if within six months of a birth, when the cells of the brain are still multiplying and reproducing, one were to furnish substances containing great amounts of proteins and nucleic acid, the intellectual development of infants might be further enhanced. E. Genetic Engineering.
Genetic engineering refers to the artificial techniques of assembling genes; it is also known as a technique for reorganizing DNA. At the present time there are many methods with which to prevent and treat genetic illnesses. However, none of these procedures is able to root out a hereditary illness at its source; they are only able to effect cures for the individual afflicted. These diseases thus reappear in later
generations. If one desires to eradicate a genetic defect, the ideal method would be to repair or replace either the gene or the chromosome. The use of such procedures effects a permanent cure, and this is what is known as genetic engineering. While still at the exploratory stage, genetic engineering has created a tempest of controversy. However it should be borne in mind that the prospects for genetic engineering to effect a final cure for hereditary illness as well as to make possible the birth of healthier infants are very bright indeed.

III. Promoting the births of superior children, pushing family planning, and quickening the pace of socialist modernization. At the present time, over 3000 types of genetic diseases are known in the world. Between one and three per cent of human kind suffer from various kinds of hereditary illnesses, while between four and five per cent of newborns are afflicted with genetic diseases. Many of these genetic illnesses are congenital or hereditary in nature, and are extremely dangerous to mankind. On the basis of incomplete statistics, it has been estimated that there are at least 1,200,000 Chinese in the PRC who suffer from congenital dementia. Their
number could be more than 3 million. The living and medical expenses incurred for each person in the course of growing up are at least 5,000 yuan. When this figure is multiplied by 1.2 million, the expenditures made on behalf of these individuals add up to at least 5.5 billion yuan.

Assuming a monthly grain ration of 25 catties (10), they consume some 360 million catties of food grains a year. China is a poor country. Having to make so large an expenditure to feed and provide medical care for those who suffer from the above disease and who, as a result, can contribute nothing to society, is an extra burden for our socialist construction to bear. To cite examples of genetic diseases which are area specific, there are mountainous regions and even individual flatland areas in China where a great many of the occupants suffer from cretinism. Though they consume food and produce children, these deaf mutes are unable to engage in any productive labor at all. According to one estimate, some 2 million people suffer from this illness in China. In some areas, the incidence reaches as high as 2-4% of the population, while in specific production brigades the rate can exceed 10%. In these areas, it is exceedingly difficult to increase production and to implement birth control. Taken together, these problems represent a significant burden on our country. Currently, the incidence of schizophrenia is approximately 0.2%.(11) There are currently about 2 million schizophrenics in our country, and their number is
increasing. On the basis of statistics obtained in 1979, there are no less than 4 to 5 million retarded children in China. However, among the newborn, the proportion of abnormal children is still greater, accounting for roughly 2% of all births. If one were to group together all of the children who suffer from various kinds of birth defects, a figure of more than 10 million would be obtained. This number does not include children who will develop these kinds of problems later in life. Much parental anguish is caused by these children; they are unable to do anything useful; they are a financial and mental burden on their parents; and they pose an increasing burden on our country. It can be seen that socialist modernization urgently needs a reduction or elimination of genetic diseases and hereditary defects. Only by promoting the births of better offspring can we improve the genetic quality of our population, reduce or eliminate a variety of genetic diseases, and thereby lessen the burdens imposed on both family and nation. Therefore, to promote eugenics is to secure immeasurable advantages with no harmful consequences. Such a course of action would carry much significance for the speed at which socialist modernization can proceed.

Eugenics can also play a considerable role in controlling population growth. If a couple gives birth to a disabled or retarded child, they will invariably want to have a second child. As a result, the proportion of our population which is of poor quality increases as does the overall birth rate. Naturally, this does nothing for the quality of our people and lies at cross-purposes with our will to decrease the population of the PRC. If we promote eugenics and make it possible for every couple to have a child with superior physical and intellectual attributes, there will be no need for the mother and father to worry about the health of their descendants. This would also facilitate the control of population growth. In a word, to promote eugenics is to advance family planning. It is also to hasten the realization of the four modernization’ s. It is in accord with the fundamental interests of all levels of our society: nation, collective, family and individual. It is our earnest hope that eugenics should not be construed as a purely expedient measure, but rather as a long-term mission, which concerns the long-term prosperity of the Chinese race in the
centuries ahead. Each one of us, especially the members of the CCP (12) and the Communist Youth League, must bravely endeavor to destroy and eliminate outdated concepts, actively study and propagate the knowledge of eugenics, and bring about the birth of healthier, superior children. By so doing, we will be able to furnish the high quality builders required for the realization of the four modernizations.

(End of translation of an article by Sun Dong-Sheng, Jinan Army Institute, People’s Republic of China)

Translators’ Notes:

(1) Translators’ note: See Curt Stem, Principles of Human Genetics, 2nd edition, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1960.

(2) Translators’ note: It is obvious from these remarks that the author considers I.Q. to measure only the genotypic component of phenotypic intelligence. [ This view is under contention in the West, but biological determinists and realists consider it truth. ]

(3) Translators’ note: The author here obviously refers to fraternal rather than identical twins. The latter, of course, are genetically identical.

(4) Translators’ note: Literally, of course, this is in error, as anthropological evidence indicates that the species, Homo sapiens, emerged 250,000 - 100,000 years ago. It is possible that the author refers here to the Neolithic period forward, which began circa 10,000 BC and during which the Chinese nation itself emerged. (In Lysenko terminology, you are born an H.sapien animal; it is society that makes you into a human.) (It is also possible that the author is being rhetorical, i.e.,,”the human species CAN be around so long, so many generations, yet man is still man.)

(5) Translators’ note: These seem to be the standard statistics for the incidence of schizophrenia for the human population as a whole (see Eugene Garfield,,”What do we know about the group of mental disorders called schizophrenia? Part 1: Etiology,” Current Contents 15 (25) 1983:5-13). The author, however, reports a substantially lower incidence for the Chinese population alone (see note 8 below).

(6) Translators’ note: The 1980 Marriage Law in China prohibits marriages between collateral relatives within three generations (see below and also Y. Tien,,”China: Demographic billionaire, ” Population Bulletin 38 (2), p. 25). Such marriages would be, in the main, first cousin marriages, which are naturally more common in a village-based economy, such as China’s, than in urban-based economies, such as those in the West. This, and the following paragraph, make the now standard argument for forbidding first cousin marriages, which is essentially to point to the statistics on
inbreeding depression. But one should note here, as the author does not, that while it is true that defective phenotypes in the next generation will decrease if inbreeding is prohibited, it is also true that the frequency of deleterious recessive genes will increase.,”As population structure changes from small isolated villages to large panmictic nations there will be a considerable increase in deleterious recessives., ” (p. 318, F. Livingston,, “Cultural causes of genetic change,” in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg, Eds., Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture? , Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1980, pp. 307-329). inbreeding, in effect, makes possible
the identification and elimination of deleterious recessive mutants and thereby acts to check the increase in the,”genetic load,” of a population. It is not without irony here that Charles Darwin himself married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood.

(7) Translators’ note: These countries are not named by the author.

(8) Translators’ note: There are reports of a similar phenomenon in the United States. See Richard Lyons,,”Physical and Mental Disabilities in Newborns Doubled in 25 Years,” New York Times, July 18, 1983, pp. 1, IO.

(9) Translators’ note: Some idea of how far environmental pollution has gone in China may be gotten from Vaclar Smilz,”Environmental degradation in China,” Asian Survey 20 1980:777-788.

(10) Translators’ note: One catty @ .60 kilogram.

(11) Translators’ note: This is apparently the incidence for the Chinese population alone (see note 5 above). (12) Translators’ note: CCP - The Chinese Communist Party.

Note: No one with the me-first-ism Western attitude, no one too focused on individual-ism and selfishness, could possibly,”make it,” in such a society. Western people feel that it’s a “human right” to have a child, they are even outraged at the forced abortions. Socialism can’t work if it’s only for “some,” and not for all. Who is going to care for, say, all those children born with brain damage and other damage due to crack cocain, for instance? What is going to happen when those babies grow up, babies now kept alive on the public dole while healthy people can’t afford a doctor if
they get the flu or a sore throat? WHO is going to pay for them and what are they going to become in the society? Monsters? Socialism, and what can be done under Socialism, is the NEXT progressive step in the evolution of man. The consciousness or the life-paradigms of humanity have to first be changed in order for Socialist Construction to really take shape. People have to start to THINK collectively and more cooperatively and less selfishly. Einstein agreed. The Chinese are not,”going to do,” this, they HAVE BEEN doing it. All one need to do, the next time a phony leftist comes along, is show them what real Communists are like.

The Civic Platform


Interesting. For socialism -- or do they mean civilization? -- to work, they believe, you need mostly contributors and blatant removal of blatant non-contributors.

The West is no different than the East in this regard. Our greatest thinkers knew all of what was said in the above article and realize it is true; our social conventions demand we deny it, however.

For example, intelligence is heritable. And while the West makes a big deal of "individual rights," we also have no problem failing to support people who contribute but do not generate income, so clearly "rights" is a smokescreen for something else, e.g. the ability of individuals to be selfish at the expense of society -- a trait held in common by all declining societies, as Toynbee showed us.

So while the (obviously liberal, hence delusional) translator tried to show us how different we in the West and China are, what he or she really showed to me is how similar we are -- or would be, if we dropped useless pretense and focused on reality.

How Warfare Helped Us Evolve

You either say a joyous Yes! to life -- with all of its horror and death -- or you forever cower inside yourself. Remember that as you read.


Now a new theory is emerging that challenges the prevailing view that warfare is a product of human culture and thus a relatively recent phenomenon. For the first time, anthropologists, archaeologists, primatologists, psychologists and political scientists are approaching a consensus. Not only is war as ancient as humankind, they say, but it has played an integral role in our evolution.

The theory helps explain the evolution of familiar aspects of warlike behaviour such as gang warfare. And even suggests the cooperative skills we've had to develop to be effective warriors have turned into the modern ability to work towards a common goal.

These ideas emerged at a conference last month on the evolutionary origins of war at the University of Oregon in Eugene. "The picture that was painted was quite consistent," says Mark Van Vugt, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Kent, UK. "Warfare has been with us for at least several tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years." He thinks it was already there in the common ancestor we share with chimps. "It has been a significant selection pressure on the human species," he says. In fact several fossils of early humans have wounds consistent with warfare.

Studies suggest that warfare accounts for 10 per cent or more of all male deaths in present-day hunter-gatherers. "That's enough to get your attention," says Stephen LeBlanc, an archaeologist at Harvard University's Peabody Museum in Boston.

New Scientist

Thursday, November 13, 2008

More Denial of Reality Chronicles


"It's like pulling teeth in this market," said Twyla Rist of Reece & Nichols Realtors in Kansas City, where prices are off between 7 percent and 15 percent. "Even with everything being said, you still have people that think my house is better than everybody else's."

A recent Coldwell Banker report showed that more than three-quarters of its real estate agents surveyed said most sellers have unrealistic initial listing prices for their homes.

Likewise, an unscientific study released last week by real-estate Web site Zillow.com found that half of homeowners polled think their home's price has increased or stayed the same in the past year.

{ snip }

In fact, the median sales price of an existing home dropped 9 percent to $191,600 in September from a year ago, according to the National Association of Realtors.

{ snip }

"We feel that we're better than other people. We're unique. We're special," he said. "It stands to reason that our houses are also special."

{ snip }

"Owners are very concerned about how much they paid for particular changes, but buyers out there don't value them."

{ snip }

"Like any type of loss, there's a grieving process," Batchelor said. "First, they're in denial, then angry, then depressed and hopeless. But then they eventually move on if they want to sell it."

MSNBC


More relative fallacy: a sale is relative to purchaser and seller.

A home is only worth what a purchaser will pay for it, and a seller will let it go for -- and we're talking about specific, real, people.

The real estate assessment is also "unreal," but because it summarizes statistical data, is more real than what many people will think if left up to their own preferences.

This denial of reality, even among the affluent, is yet another of the infinite reasons why Democracy is a stupid idea.

Monkeys!

The Best Anti-Obama Article Ever


The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship—its nearest equivalent—is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

{ snip }

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

{ snip }

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King—in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education.

{ snip }

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

{ snip }

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party—the Republicans—to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Daily Mail


The whole thing is worth reading. Hilarious and apt.

Lawsuit Over Anti-Obama Comments


In a statement from his office entitled "Africa conquers the White House," Gansel said multicultural America sought the destruction of "pure" national cultures and that Obama aimed to destroy the United States' "white identity."

"A non-white America is a declaration of war on all people who believe an organically grown social order based on language and culture, history and heritage to be the essence of humanity," he said. "Barack Obama hides this declaration of war behind his pushy sunshine
smile."

{ snip }

The NPD, which professes an anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic platform, holds seats in two eastern German state legislatures, but has never cleared the five-percent hurdle for representation in the national parliament, the Bundestag.

The Local


With such a negative platform, I wonder why they're not doing so well at Democracy.

The Silent Majority

We are probably all familiar with the concept of the Silent Majority, or the bulk of people who take care of their own jobs, families, and communities, and have little interaction with politics.

I don't think the Silent Majority is aware how much dissent has fragmented our population, and how many people are becoming part of breakaway ideologies. Whether anarchists, Nazis, greens, tribalists, drug users, paranoids, Scientologists, etc. people are being compelled by pluralism to defend their ideological purity by joining increasingly non-mainstream ideologies.

They're starting to get an inkling of this in the USA -- how much pluralism pulls us apart, because it is a process which means it always widens its scope until stopped -- but it hasn't yet dawned. It will be interesting to watch.

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, by Jerry Mander

Despite the obvious pseudonym, this author seems to know what's up. He's not arguing for the elimination of television from your life, he's arguing for fascist-style elimination of television entirely.

I have to say I think he's right. Summary from John Zerzan:


Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television

Jerry Mander

Most Americans, whether on the political left, center or right, will argue that technology is neutral, that any technology is merely a benign instrument, a tool, and depending upon the hands into which it falls, it may be used one way or another. There is nothing that prevents a technology from being used well or badly; nothing intrinsic in the technology itself or the circumstances of its emergence which can predetermine its use, its control or its effects upon individual human lives or the social and political forms around us.

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, by Jerry Mander, a total anti-tv fascist who happens to be correct
The argument goes that television is merely a window or a conduit through which any perception, any argument or reality may pass. It therefore has the potential to be enlightening to people who watch it and is potentially useful to democratic processes. It will be the central point of this book that these assumptions about television, as about other technologies, are totally wrong.

If you once accept the principle of an army - a collection of military technologies and people to run them - all gathered together for the purpose of fighting, overpowering, killing and winning, then it is obvious that the supervisors of armies will be the sort of people who desire to fight, overpower, kill and win, and who are also good at these assignments: generals. The fact of generals, then, is predictable by the creation of armies. The kinds of generals are also predetermined. Humanistic, loving, pacifistic generals, though they may exist from time to time, are extremely rare in armies. It is useless to advocate that we have more of them.

If you accept the existence of automobiles, you also accept the existence of roads laid upon the landscape, oil to run the cars, and huge institutions to find the oil, pump it and distribute it. In addition you accept a sped-up style of life and the movement of humans through the terrain at speeds that make it impossible to pay attention to whatever is growing there. Humans who use cars sit in fixed positions for long hours following a narrow strip of gray pavement, with eyes fixed forward, engaged in the task of driving. As long as they are driving, they are living within what we might call "roadform". Slowly they evolve into car-people. McLuhan told us that cars "extended the human feet, but he put it the wrong way. Cars replaced human feet.

If you accept nuclear power plants, you also accept a techno-scientific-industrial-military elite. Without these people in charge, you could not have nuclear power. You and I getting together with a few friends could not make use of nuclear power. We could not build such a plant, nor could we make personal use of its output, nor handle or store the radioactive waste products which remain dangerous to life for thousands of years. The wastes, in turn, determine that future societies will have to maintain a technological capacity to deal with the problem, and the military capability to protect the wastes. So the existence of the technology determines many aspects of the society.

If you accept mass production, you accept that a small number of people will supervise the daily existence of a much larger number of people. You accept that human beings will spend long hours, every day, engaged in repetitive work, while supressing any desires for experience or activity beyond this work. The workers' behaviour becomes subject to the machine. With mass production, you also accept that huge numbers of identical items will need to be efficiently distributed to huge numbers of people and that institutions such as advertising will arise to do this. One technological process cannot exist without the other, creating symbolic relationships among technologies themselves.

If you accept the existence of advertising, you accept a system designed to persuade and to dominate minds by interfering in people's thinking patterns. You also accept that the system will be used by the sorts of people who like to influence people and are good at it. No person who did not wish to dominate others would choose to use advertising, or choosing it, succeed in it. So the basic nature of advertising and all technologies created to serve it will be consistent with this purpose, will encourage this behaviour in society, and will tend to push social evolution in this direction.

In all of these instances, the basic form of the institution and the technology determines its interaction with the world, the way it will be used, the kind of people who use it, and to what ends. And so it is with television. Far from being "neutral," television itself predetermines who shall use it, how they will use it, what effects it will have on individual lives, and, if it continues to be widely used, what sorts of political forms will inevitably emerge.

It was only after a long while and many half-steps of change in viewpoint that I finally faced the fact that television is not reformable, that it must be gotten rid of totally if our society is to return to something like sane and democratic functioning. So, to argue that case, especially considering that it involves a technology accepted as readily and utterly as electric light itself, is not something that ought to be done rapidly or lightly. Nor can such a case be confined to the technology itself, as if it existed aside from a context.

The first argument is theoretical and environmental. It attempts to set the framework by which we can understand television's place in modern society. Yet, this argument is not about television itself. In fact, television will be mentioned only occasionally. It is about a process, already long underway, which has successfully redirected and confined human experience and therefore knowledge and perceived reality. We have all been moved into such a narrow and deprived channel of experience that a dangerous instrument like television can come along and seem useful, interesting, sane, and worthwhile at the same time it further boxes people into a physical and mental condition appropriate for the emergence of autocratic control.

The second argument concerns the emergence of the controllers. That television would be used and expanded by the present powers-that-be was inevitable, and should have been predictable at the outset. The technology permits of no other controllers.

The third argument concerns the effects of television upon individual human bodies and minds, effects which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium.

The fourth argument demonstrates that television has no democratic potential. The technology itself places absolute limits on what may pass through it. The medium, in effect, chooses its own content from a very narrow field of possibilities. The effect is to drastically confine all human understanding within a rigid channel. What binds the four arguments together is that they deal with aspects of television that are not reformable.

What is revealed in the end is that there is ideology in the technology itself. To speak of television as "neutral" and therefore subject to change is as absurd as speaking of the reform of a technology such as guns.

From the book "Questioning Technology", edited by John Zerzan and Alice Carnes.
New Society Publishers, Philadelphia PA. ISBN: 0-86571-205-0.

Eco-action


You can find the full book here:

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander

Lock Up All the Neo-Nazis

As we face a new -- but old, following the path of other failed civilizations -- era, we are going to face the rising anger of the far right: neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, and so on.

When I think of this group, what makes me dislike their existence is that they're so negative. Instead of affirming racial differences through the positive, like pointing out the traits that make us different and how they point to proud histories, they're constantly negative. Instead of pointing out the obvious, which is that multiculturalism and pluralism destroy societies, they blame black people -- and pretend that our failing civilization would be just peachy keen if it weren't for the presence of African genetics among us.

That's negativity, not logic, and it's highly destructive. It's not constructing a future, it's whining. It's not looking toward something better; it's affirming what's worse. In short, even if it weren't an ideology I disagreed with, I'd say it's a dumb implementation.

Then there's this:


What we have here, then, is a group of people claiming that all whites should be equal and should join together to commit racial holy war against non-whites, thus delivering us to a society that is a mirror image of our current one except that it is all "white," including the mixed tribes mentioned above. Further, those who are involved in the quest wish to dominate this new society, and to exclude or execute those who have collaborated with the current society, much like revolutionaries have in the past. It is a revolutionary movement, not a constructive one; it wishes to tear down a hierarchy and replace it with a worker's paradise, even if all the workers are ostensibly "white." In short, it is racial Marxism, and it will prove as destructive to the Indo-European tribes as capitalist multiculturalism has. This is the reason it does not appeal to the Silent Majority: it would end their ability to separate themselves from the "base" rabble and achieve greater heights, therefore, White Nationalism is not the one roll of the dice we should take when reforming our society.

Among thinking people of course there is no question that our society should be reformed, and more radically than any White Nationalist has so far suggested. Our values became fundamentally rotted to the point where the first mass revolt could occur, and since then, we have been degenerating as a population even without the influence of other races. We are breeding people to have jobs, buy hot food, and then eat it watching television. Divorce rates are sky-high, drug abuse is rampant, STDs are skyrocketing, pollution increases yearly, our climate is shattered, we die of cancers at incredible rates, depression is on the rise in all industrialized countries, we spend increasing amounts of time manipulating a system that was supposed to be working for us, our leaders are cynical predators who use the image of truth to disguise a personal profit agenda; we are declining into a third-world state without the intervention of any other races, and while multiculturalism is a symbol of this and a failure of an ideology in itself, it is not the cause. The cause is within. We cannot blame others; we have to look within. And when we've found the cause, argue Silent Majority types, instead of screaming for vegeance we should find a long-term solution to the problem. Since that involves replacing economic-driven modern society with something that lives for values itself, and is a reversal of the steady decline of the last thousand years, it's no small order. Not only is White Nationalism not up to task, Silent Majority types argue, but by the nature of its Marxist roots it will interrupt the healing process that is needed.

NUSA


Neo-Nazis are racial Marxists, or devotees of the exact ideology their parent ideology was designed to prevent.

Keep negative thinking in all forms out of politics. It's fine to say multiculturalism and pluralism don't work; it's stupid to veer off into bigotry, racism, hatred and negativity.

Lock up all the neo-Nazis, and anyone else who thinks in such negative, dead-end, hopeless, violently exclusive terms.

More Racial Drama Over Obama Tshirts

Can we just admit that there's a political race war on, and everyone seems glad it has finally started?


Wilson said a boy in her gym class that morning told her, "Oh, sh-, now there's a black family in the White House" and "He's going to get shot in a couple months anyway." The classmate later used a racial epithet to describe Obama in front of Wilson's sister, she said.

{ snip }

Wilson said that after she talked to Stone, she went to her locker and meant to change her shirt, when she saw another classmate wearing a Confederate flag T-shirt.

{ snip }

After she was again told to remove the shirt, which read: "OBAMA Got Em, 11-4-2008, 11:00 p.m., (Hate on it)," Wilson refused.

{ snip }

The back of the shirt read: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message. Call it the Black House!"

{ snip }

"When racial issues are brought up, we deal with them immediately," Williams said. "They are dealt with. That is one thing we don't stand for. Generally, when kids make racial comments they are suspended."

Gazette


We're going to be dealing with "racial issues" for some time. Gosh, one more thing to wear us down and tire us out as our civilization declines into third-world status.

Can We Admit Sexuality is Genetic Yet?

Yes, as mentioned before, some people are molested young and so become homosexual. But for most people sexuality is defined in the womb.


The nature-versus-nurture debate rages on, but a new study of transsexuals has shown genetics plays a key role in determining our sense of gender.

{ snip }

Researchers measured the variation in the androgen receptor gene, which is involved in the functioning of the sex hormone testosterone.

{snip }

Researchers discovered the transsexuals were more likely than non-transsexuals to have a longer form of the gene.

Fox


That's solid evidence of a genetic basis to the change in sexual identification.

Antifascists Beat Un-Fascist Punk Vocalist


this message is to the [people] who came to the madrid show and attacked wattie from behind with metal bars.

you are morons ...not men 12 guys on to one guy how brave.

{ snip }

you so called anti nazis attacked wattie with no warning or discussion because you think we are nazis. wattie had his picture taken with some one 20 odd years ago from a band that he didnt even know at the time that picture was taken.

he has had his picture taken with hundreds of people in hundreds of bands.

Exploited Blog


As long as you don't appear to be fascism or Nazi, you can be an authoritarian and hurt whoever you want, and others will think you're Doing The Right Thing, Man.

So if Satan comes to earth and paints the word GOOD on his forehead, we'll let him do whatever he wants.

Civilizations make it too easy to manipulate one another.

The New Denial of Science: Monkeys on Trial

We now know we're descended from monkeys. Our current monkey-like behavior proves it:


The modern-day Copernican principle amounts to two assumptions. First, that averaged over large enough scales the universe is homogeneous, having essentially the same properties in all locations. Second, that the universe is isotropic, or appears to have the same properties when viewed in any direction from every location. These two ideas are intimately related, but logically separate (see diagram). They were introduced into cosmology not because of any observational evidence, but to save face. In 1917, Albert Einstein had applied his theory of gravity - general relativity - to the dynamics of the universe. Without the simplifying assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy, Einstein's fiendishly complex equations proved impossible to solve.

Even with those assumptions, Einstein's initial insistence that we live in an unchanging universe led him to the wrong solutions. By dropping the "unchanging universe" requirement a few years later, cosmologists created the picture that became the kernel of today's phenomenally successful big bang model. In this picture, the universe started out as a single, infinitely hot and dense point in space, and has since been expanding - initially rapidly, but gradually more slowly as gravity has exerted its pull on the mass of the cosmos.

All seemed well, with evidence in support of the big bang model piling up throughout the 20th century. Then, in 1998, astronomers studying stellar explosions known as type 1a supernovae made a sensational discovery. These supernovae are thought to be uniformly bright, so that the fainter they appear to us, the farther they must be away. But measurements showed that the most distant supernovae did not fit in: they were a lot fainter than they should have been, and seemed impossibly far away. Some time over the past few billion years, they must have begun to race away from us ever faster. Rather than the universe's expansion slowing down, it looked like it was speeding up.

{ snip }

According to Ellis and others, our uncertainty about galaxy distances allows an interesting possibility. The distribution of matter could look the same in all directions, but vary with distance from us. In particular, we might be sitting in the middle of a "void" - a vast spherical bubble in an otherwise homogeneous universe. This bubble is not devoid of matter. In fact, most of the stars and galaxies we can see from Earth would be contained within it. It's just that everywhere beyond it, which is too far away to see, the density of stars and galaxies is much higher.

NewScientist


When we talk about the arrogance of science, we probably mean the tendency of scientists to see a bit of truth that's verifiable, and then make a horde of assumptions based upon it -- which are not verifiable, but are presented as being as equally verifiable as the originally factoid itself.

That's like me looking in the mirror and saying, "I have an attractive nose hair... so I must be attractive. Brad Pitt, outta my way!"

Of course, in a dying civilization, everyone is looking for a reason to be important so they can market themselves, and these scientists didn't come close to dying in obscurity.

However, we now must re-assess: how much of our many "Enlightenments" were actually misperceptions? Do all human failings come back to the perceptual fallacy, where we forget that appearances are relative to our own Heisenbergian perspective within the situation, and not outside of it like some dualistic God?