Tag Archives: genetics

The Gene-Culture

The phrase “gene-culture” expresses the idea that there is no such thing as a culture independent from genes, or genes independent from culture. It enables a researcher to think of human evolution in accurate, realistic terms. At a population level, it is not individual humans, or specific genetic backgrounds, that are most relevant to natural selection, it is the gene-culture.

Examples of gene-cultures are WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), Lebanese Christians, the Amish, Malaysian Muslims, and Ashkenazi Jews.

In order for children to grow up, prosper, and reproduce, in addition to requiring healthy and capable genes, they require healthy and capable cultures. They need a culture where there is rule of law, where there is sufficient social support to overcome the fear of the financial risk posed by having children, and where there is sufficient knowledge and health care to feed, clothe and care for these children.

The reproductive prosperity of a population relies on both genes and cultures. The two are inseparable. And when either of them is unfit, reproductive fitness is diminished.

The Japanese are extremely fit genetically. Intellectually they have the capacity to provide sufficient food and care for their offspring. But their culture is unfit. The reproductive fitness of their genes doesn’t make a difference when the culture part is unfit; the gene-culture as a whole becomes unfit and fails to reproduce effectively.

What is unfit about Japanese culture is the fact that they fully embraced the West’s neo-Liberal Usurer Economics, which, through the Risk-Profit Differential, constantly pushes the nation’s wealth into the hands of the super-rich, increasing poverty among the lower classes, and causing stagnation in the middle class.

Any culture that is not resistant to usury will eventually suffer stagnation, declining birth rates and population shrinkage. This is happening in most, if not all, of the developed world.

Just as a population that is genetically prone to a plague can be wiped out by it, a population that is culturally prone to usury will be wiped out by it.

The idea of the gene-culture enables us to view matters of cultural (economic and religious) practice in Darwinian terms. Just as a harmful genetic mutation reduces a population’s viability, a harmful cultural mutation (in the case of Japanese, embracing Western-style usury) reduces the population’s viability.

The idea of the gene-culture also contains the important implication that culture affects genes and genes affect culture. Among animals, genetic fitness is the most important factor in their survival, most animals have negligible cultures (exceptions being higher primates like orangutans). Humans, however, due to their intellectual complexity, are extremely reliant on culture, so that culture makes up about half of the picture when it comes to examining a population’s reproductive fitness.

In the above chart, I’m counting the material environment in which the genes exist toward the gene side. The contribution of culture toward the reproductive fitness of humans varies a great deal from environment to environment, and the average amount of its contribution might be less than 50%.

Imagine a hundred Japanese middle class families in Tokyo adopting a hundred Haitian children from soon after birth. The children will grow up in a Japanese world, learning Japanese customs and ideals. But they do not have Japanese genes. Victorian romantics and modern proponents of “environment is everything” (junk 20th century social scientists, which is nearly all of them) would imagine that these children would grow up and make perfect Japanese citizens who will only be held back by racism.

What actually happens is that their Haitian genes will mutate Japanese culture, so that no matter how hard they try to be authentically Japanese, there will be clear manifestations of differences in their understanding and application of Japanese culture (which is not a bad thing, it is a simple fact of biology).

But the most interesting thing is the children of these children. These children will create a Creole Japanese culture that will seem quite foreign to the average Japanese. It will have aspects of Japanese culture and Haitian culture, even if the children and their parents know nothing about Haiti and its people. Haitian culture is partly a result of its population’s genetics. And if this population is made to grow up in Japan, these genes will ultimately show through, tearing Japanese cultural conditioning apart and creating something new and interesting out of it.

An interesting expression of the gene-culture came from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia’s president, the Wall Street-friendly drunkard Boris Yeltsin, took off all of Russia’s defenses and threw it to Wall Street’s fattest and ugliest usurers, who, in just a few years, managed to plunge the country into the worst demographic disaster in its history. Russia started to resemble a third-world backwater rather than a proud Euro-Asiatic country. Regardless of the genetic fitness of Russia’s population, removal of its cultural defenses against usury destroyed its reproductive fitness.

Once Vladimir Putin took over, he kicked out the usurers and started the process of repairing Russia’s cultural fitness through reviving the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian industry. The usurers, in turn, launched an all-out financial and propaganda war on him from Wall Street that has continued to date. Regardless of Wall Street and Washington’s chest-pumping, Russia has continued its demographic recovery. Christianity is back on the rise, culture is flourishing, life expectancies increase and technological innovation grows.

The above is, of course, a gross simplification of what happened in Russia. But to the gene-culture this is not an issue, since the gene-culture is a high-level construct that enables researchers to examine human history from a Darwinian perspective. No facts are ignored or thrown out to fit reality into the theory (as is done by junk sociologists on the one hand, and certain evolutionary psychologists on the other), as the theory encompasses all facts. Dysfunctions in politics are affected by, and affect, the gene-culture. Russia’s gene-culture leads to Czars, Arab and African gene-cultures lead to dictators, and Western Europe’s present gene-culture leads to usurer-controlled democracies. Cultures select for genes and genes select for cultures.

The gene-culture also sheds light on the effects of feminism. Feminism reduces fertility in many ways, such as encouraging women to spend their most fertile years working to enrich the usurer class. A gene-culture that is not immune to feminism will be infected and mutated by it, so that its reproductive fitness decreases. Meanwhile, gene-cultures that are immune to feminism will not be harmed by it, and will reproduce faster than the infected populations. This process will naturally eliminate feminism from any large population that contains a significant minority gene-culture that is resistant to feminism.

The gene-culture could also be called the gene-meme, or geme for short. But this gets too technical and only social scientists would understand it. I chose “gene-culture” since it is easier to imagine and comprehend. By “culture” I mean everything carried by a human population apart from genes and epigenetics. This includes language, religion, law and political institutions.

/ No Comments on The Gene-Culture

Feminism as a self-eliminating eugenic tool

Every society selects for something. —Greg Cochran

Feminism—and I use this term as a synonym for “female supremacism”, the mainstream ideology of Women’s Studies departments at Western universities—severely restricts the fertility of individuals that subscribe to its tenets. There are, however, communities of individuals that are immune to feminist evangelism and who continue to function as if they are in the sweet English countryside of Queen Victoria’s time, where feminist talking points seem crazy, outlandish and irrelevant.

There is a certain set of genes, when paired with a certain type of culture—thus a gene-culture—that creates immunity to feminism. The necessary feminism-resistance genes probably have the most to do with intelligence. Enough intelligence is required to recognize the good in feminism and then going beyond it, knowing that the right way to create a fair and peaceful world is not through hate and supremacism. On the culture side, conservatism or empiricism are required, meaning that feminism-resistant people are overwhelmingly conservative, but the odd liberal can be found who insists that feminists must produce empirical support for their policies before he or she follows their way of life.

There are folks among anti-feminism activists  who think that feminism will cause the end of humanity through sub-replacement fertility. My optimistic view is that feminist eugenics will continually eliminate feminism-prone gene-cultures across the generations, so that only feminism-resistant gene-cultures remain. Since feminism is an anti-fertility tool, any society that adopts it will engage in an eugenic experiment where feminism-resistant gene-cultures have a much higher fertility rate than feminism-prone ones, meaning that within just a few generations, feminism-proneness can get eliminated from the gene-culture pool.

An example of a group that possesses a feminism-resistant gene-cultures is people who are middle class extremely conservative white Christians who, while appreciating that women’s equality is a good thing, reject the rest of feminism’s outlandish baggage. These people, despite the best efforts of liberals in the media and in college to infuse their minds with feminism and self-hate, and even though they probably lose 22% of each generation to less conservative blocs, rather than giving up on life and shrinking, they continue to grow.

If you see a white feminist girl who comes from an extremely conservative Christian family, it is not a sign that the world is ending for conservative Christians. She is merely a member of the 22% “leaver” minority.

Other feminism-resistant gene-cultures are conservative Muslims, who, while losing a sizable amount of each generation to feminism, rather than shrinking, they continue to grow. Orthodox Jews may also be a feminism-resistant gene-cultures.

An instance of a member of a feminism-prone gene-culture is a white Christian girl who believes in her parents’ conservative ideals, but who goes to college and becomes enamored with feminism and rejects her background. It doesn’t matter whether it was her genes (for example an IQ not high enough to see feminism’s failings) or her culture (a self-contradictory version of Christianity), the result is that the gene-culture becomes infected with feminism and loses its capability to reproduce effectively.

The longer that feminism is active in a society, the more feminism-resistant the society becomes, as feminism eliminates most feminism-prone individuals from the gene pool.

Gene-Culture Drift and the Feminism Cycle

Once feminism has been utterly defeated and consigned to history, its feminism-eliminating eugenic effect will disappear. What happens next is that feminism-prone gene-cultures will acquire higher fertility (as feminism is no longer there to restrict fertility). Segments of society will appear that are less appreciative of conservative ideals and more open to new and interesting ways of life. They will enjoy the high fertility of the feminism-resistant societies they live in. Once the feminism-prone population reaches critical mass, a catalyst such as the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s can give rise to a new wave of feminism, while also turning off the high-fertility switch in the infected population.

It is my view that the generation born after the Millennials (those born after 2005) will be the worst nightmare of feminists. White Millennials have already shown their blasé stance toward feminism and other extreme liberal ideologies by voting more for Donald Trump (48%) than for Hillary Clinton (42%) [according to Bloomberg]. The 2005+ generation is quite likely to go full anti-feminist despite being subjected to fascist-level all-out pro-feminist propaganda in schools and the media. The rise of nationalism in Europe and the United States, quite reminiscent of 1920s Europe, is a harbinger of what’s potentially to come.

However, there is no need to celebrate. Feminism will probably be old and boring news in 2050, but just when it dies, that is when it starts rising again.

One thing that needs to be clarified is the timeline that the feminism rise and fall cycle follows. Is it one human life time (every 80 years, as suggested by mid-1800’s and early 1900’s, and 1970’s feminism), or does it follow a centuries-long timeline with short-term ups and downs and general trends upward and downward?

Another question is whether each feminism cycle, through eliminating pro-feminism gene-cultures, makes its next resurgence more difficult or less. Now that feminism is running completely wild in the West, its anti-fertility effect is also running wild, meaning that it is eliminating pro-feminism gene-cultures with great efficiency. This could mean that the next feminist resurgence will be slower and weaker as a lot of time will be needed for pro-feminism gene-cultures to spread again through gene-culture drift.

The good news is that if feminism selects for one thing, it is feminism-resistance, meaning that feminism can probably never achieve a dystopian level of supremacy, as it always contains the seeds of its own destruction by killing off the offspring of its own supporters.

Another Ray of Hope

In my blog post “The death of false ideologies” I outline another process by which feminism (and other false ideologies) can meet an early demise: The possibility that children born to feminist parents will find the ideology boring and stifling. This is an important reason in my belief that the 2005+ generation is going to be anti-feminist, as many of them will be growing up in a world where feminism reigns supreme. Feminism, similar to communism, looks good from the outside. But once people are actually subjected to its tyranny, they will hate it with an exquisite passion.