The Political Implications Of Kinship Intensity

The phrase “kinship intensity” is rare in the behavioural science literature, but it’s making a resurgence thanks to new understandings of genetics. Although the concept of kinship intensity has been thoroughly elaborated upon with regards to mate selection, its inevitable profound impact on our political philosophy has yet to occur. This essay gives a foretaste.

Kinship is the primary organising principle of human societies. The reasons for this have been described at length by evolutionary psychologists and by biologists in works such as The Selfish Gene. In short, kinship organises societies because organisms that co-operate socially are more likely to survive and to reproduce than ones who don’t.

The great political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Chanakya, Machiavelli and Hobbes didn’t know about genes, and so they had no concept of kinship intensity. Aristotle was aware that families organised into villages, and villages into provinces, and provinces into nations, but he didn’t know that it was kin selection on the basis of shared genes that drove all of that.

Back in the old days, before the Age of Exploration and mass transit, almost everyone lived in a state of high kinship intensity. Most people only knew a couple of hundred other people from their village and a few regional luminaries like the local sheriff or priest. Virtually everyone was related to each other in some way. They celebrated each others’ weddings and birthdays all the time.

In the modern world, most people live in a low state of kinship intensity. Living in big cities, many people encounter strangers all day – not only people from other tribes but from other countries and continents. In big cities, one comes into contact with people whose natural behaviour is so different to one’s own that it seems alien.

This change – from medieval to modern – has had profound effects on our political attitudes.

When a society has a high degree of kinship intensity, people are much more generous and co-operative. It’s logical to be, because any given act of kindness is more likely to benefit someone like you. If many of your kin live in the same society, it makes sense to work towards the betterment of that society, perhaps even making sacrifices for it. Your kin will benefit, and will reciprocate.

When a society has a low degree of kinship intensity, people are much less generous and co-operative. This is also logical, because acts of kindness cost the same amount to perform but will benefit someone unlike you, who is unlikely to reciprocate it. If you’re the only one of your kin in a society, there’s very little reason to work hard to better that society.

The West has always been split into a high kinship intensity Old World and a low kinship intensity New World. As mass immigration continues, the kinship intensity of all societies in the West will continue to fall: the Old World will become like the New and the New World will become like Brazil. This will have predictable consequences for human political behaviour.

As the degree of kinship intensity in Western countries continues to fall, people will care less and less about the people on the bottom of society. Once rich people no longer have much in common with poor people, those rich people will stop wanting to pay taxes or donate to charities that help. Decreasing kinship intensity will inevitably lead to both lower taxes and a corporate mentality where other people are viewed as tools to generate profit, and not as human beings.

If the people you’re exploiting aren’t related to you, then who cares?

The more diversity there is in a society, the more willing people in that society are to exploit others. People tend to enslave outsiders if they can, rather than their neighbours. The Barbary Coast slave traders raided Europe for slaves; the plantation owners of the American South bought theirs from Africa. African slaves constitute the largest proportion of slaves traded today, mostly by Arabs.

By contrast, the societies with the least amount of exploitation are the homogenous ones. Japan, South Korea and Scandinavia are characterised by being high-trust, low-crime societies where people habitually contribute to the common good. Societies like these, with high degrees of kinship intensity, are like large families.

We can see from this that kinship intensity predicts a number of outcomes. The higher it is, the less within-group exploitation there is. The lower it is, the greater within-group exploitation there is.

Kinship intensity predicts outcomes such as weight of taxation. In societies with high kinship intensity (like Scandinavia), people are generally happy to pay high taxes, knowing that the tax money will benefit their kin. In societies with low kinship intensity (like America), people don’t want to pay any taxes, because they feel that the tax money will benefit those who aren’t their kin.

It follows logically, therefore, that lowering the kinship intensity of a society through means such as mass immigration will make people less willing to contribute to the greater good. This apparent selfishness makes perfect sense from a kin selection perspective, and will obtain until intermarriage makes the newcomers the same kin as everyone else (or until there is civil war).

So anyone who wants to have a culture in which people contribute to the greater good, instead of exploiting it, better support policies that maintain a high level of kinship intensity. Crucial to this objective is limiting immigration to a level at which the newcomers can be absorbed into the kin networks of the existing population, rather than forming their own parallel networks.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Debunking The “Structural Racism” Conspiracy Theory

The most prevalent conspiracy theory of our time is so prevalent that it’s accepted as truth by most media entities. This theory has it that black and brown academic and economic underachievement can best be explained by structural racism and white supremacy. The truth is that, like most conspiracy theories, this theory goes directly against the relevant science, and can be disproven by it.

When 9/11 happened, a popular conspiracy theory said it was an inside job. One particular version claimed that, as the melting point of steel is higher than the burning point of jet fuel, the twin towers could not have collapsed on account of being struck by aeroplanes (the official explanation). They had to have been taken down by explosives placed within the structure of the buildings.

The way to refute this theory was to ask people qualified in the relevant science. You could say to a civil engineer or a physicist “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams,” and they would tell you that it doesn’t have to melt the beams, it just has to heat them up enough so that they become too soft to support the weight of the building, at which point it will collapse. This is what happened in the case of the twin towers. Conspiracy theory debunked.

Anyone wanting to test other conspiracy theories can do likewise. If you want to know whether the Earth is flat you could ask an astronomer. If you wanted to know whether the Earth was 6,000 years old you could ask a geologist. If you wanted to know whether humans landed on the Moon you could ask an aeronautical engineer. And if you wanted to test whether the structural racism conspiracy theory was bullshit, you could ask a psychologist.

This is what a psychologist would tell you.

The science of IQ is the most robust and heavily supported of any social science. There is more evidence backing the validity of it than there is backing anything else. Most importantly, IQ also has more predictive power than any single other variable known to Psychology.

If you disagree about its predictive power, consider the following analogy.

You have two 13-year old boys. One is tested to have an IQ of 115, i.e. one standard deviation above average. The other is tested to have an IQ of 85, one standard deviation below average. The two boys are followed up ten years after the test. Without knowing which boy is which, you’re told that one has recently completed an accounting degree, whereas the other dropped out of school and drifted into petty crime.

Can you guess which is which?

Almost everyone would guess that the boy with an IQ of 115 became the accountant. And, in the vast majority of such cases, they’d be right. Accountancy is intellectually challenging: far more accountants have IQs closer to 115 than to 85. Likewise, far more petty criminals have IQs closer to 85 than to 115. Almost everyone knows this, and almost no-one questions it.

The fact is that IQ is so powerfully predictive that we can already get a rough idea of how a person’s life will turn out just from accurately measuring their IQ. The average person with an IQ of 85 will have much greater trouble learning and recalling information than the average person with an IQ of 100. Their impulse control, measured by ability to delay gratification, will be significantly inferior.

Because their intellectual ability and their discipline are poorer than than of the average person, they will be less able to meet the demands of the modern workplace. As such, they will be marginalised into unemployment and underemployment more often. Any population of people with an average IQ of 85 will be much poorer and much more criminal than any population with an IQ of 100 or higher.

85 is also the average IQ of black Americans and Pacific Islanders, with Maoris being slightly higher (around 90). This we know from the research compiled by researchers like Richard Lynn in books like Race Differences in Intelligence.

Psychological science, therefore, can predict on the basis of IQ alone that black Americans and brown Kiwis will be poorer and will be more involved in the criminal justice system than white Americans and white Kiwis. This can be confidently predicted even in the total absence of structural racism or white supremacy.

At this point, a believer in the structural racism conspiracy theory will argue that structural racism not only makes blacks and browns poorer and more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system, but it also makes their IQs lower on account of things like teachers ignoring them more often during class or discouraging them from study. Therefore, even if they do have lower IQs, it’s still white people’s fault.

For one thing, we know that this contention can’t be true because intelligence is mostly genetic and not environmental. Although the environment can have a powerful effect on the intelligence of young people, the effect of environment on IQ is no more than 0.2 by adulthood – a phenomenon known as the Wilson Effect. Therefore, low adult IQ is primarily a genetic phenomenon.

For another thing, we can observe the experience and outcomes of other racial groups who have similar IQs to white people.

105 is the average IQ of Far East Asians. The structural racism conspiracy theory would predict that Far East Asians do worse than white people, on account of that white people deny them opportunities for advancement and discriminate against them in business and politics. After all, white supremacists don’t like Asians any more than they like blacks.

The psychological science theory would predict that Far East Asians do as well or better than white people, on account of that their high IQs lead to successful careers and less criminality. Being high IQ and having good impulse control, they should study hard and get decent jobs.

As it turns out, Asian Americans earn 7% more than whites at the median. They are also significantly less criminal, despite that more of them are from poor families and many are even refugees. This directly refutes the structural racism conspiracy theory and directly supports the psychological science theory.

Ultimately, the main reason why blacks do worse than whites in America, and the main reason why browns do worse than whites in New Zealand, is because of low IQ. This low IQ leads them to make more impulsive decisions, which leads to poverty. This isn’t at all controversial among those who have studied the relevant science.

The conspiracy theory that says blacks and browns do worse because of white racism is bullshit. This means that the poorer outcomes of blacks and browns cannot be explained by white racism, but by factors inherent to the blacks and browns themselves.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clown World Chronicles: Who Is Waifu?

The suffering of Clown World brings with it great longing. Some people long for respite, others long for vengeance, others long simply for the warm embrace of a devoted wife. Those in the latter category might find themselves pining for the sweet touch of Waifu, one of the Elders of the Clown World pantheon.

As has been described earlier in this book, relations between men and women are at an all-time low. Not only is distrust and misunderstanding between them worse than ever, but young people are having less sex than ever.

This lack of positive relations with the opposite sex – one of the most fundamental pleasures in life – is one of the leading causes of the resentment that exists in Clown World. Worst of all, these poor relations aren’t primarily the result of autism or social fashion – they’re a function of will.

Many men feel that women are now hopelessly degenerate – that they’ve all turned into some kind of roastie. As such, they don’t want to be involved with the average woman. It doesn’t seem worthwhile to devote energy to a relationship with a woman who only wants to drink booze and who will leave you as soon as she gets bored. As such, many men have dropped out of the dating game – but their basic desire for female companionship has not abated.

This combination of feelings has led men to lust after their idea of a perfect woman, the opposite of the roastie. This is the Waifu.

Not being promiscuous, Waifu is deeply devoted to the one man. She is not at all interested in the “cock carousel”. Waifu doesn’t go out drinking with the girls. She’s more interested in social bonding for the sake of creating the perfect family. Her baking skills are more sophisticated than her cock sucking skills.

Waifu relates to Stacy as the Elder Goddess of the Positive Feminine Axis relates to the Younger One. Whereas Stacy is the unrealised positive feminine, Waifu is the realised form. Stacy has the potential to develop into a Waifu or to jump on the carousel and become a roastie. In Waifu, the waveform has collapsed into perfection.

Because so many men have withdrawn from the world to watch anime and to play video games, a large number of them have encountered idealised versions of female companions in those media. Naturally, many of those men come to fantasise about having some of these ideal women as real-life companions. Collectively, these ideal females form the spirit of Waifu.

‘Waifu’ is just a transliteration into Japanese of the English word ‘wife’. It comes from the idea that women in Far East Asia are more devoted, and far less degenerate, than their Western counterparts. Whether or not this is true, there are many Western men who have imagined themselves happy together with an ideal woman.

Waifu is the essence of all of these perfect fantasy wives, distilled into one divine form. She is the Elder Goddess of the Positive Feminine Axis because she represents the ideal feminine in its perfected form, i.e. as a self-actualised version of Stacy. Waifu is the natural companion of Boomer, who is able to sit back and chill thanks to Waifu’s devoted care.

In practice, there are two Waifus: a Western one and an Eastern one.

The Western one is known as the Tradwife. She is usually portrayed as a female Wojak variant, with lustrous blonde hair and wearing a blue dress with a daisy pattern. Sometimes the trad Waifu is depicted as Bavarian or Swiss, the idea being that these places have escaped the moral decay that has afflicted the Anglosphere.

The Eastern one is like the one shown on the waifu pillow in the image at the top of the page. This one is black-haired, usually Japanese, and inevitably depicted in anime form. She is usually blushing, being so wholesome that she considers it improper for another man to gaze upon her.

Many men feel that Clown World has cost them the opportunity to have a Waifu of their own. Much of the rage directed at society comes from this perceived loss. However, these men mostly don’t understand that relations between men and women have always been tough. Lysistrata proves that things were challenging even at the peak of Western civilisation.

This is why the common longing for a return to the 1950s is mistaken. For one thing, 1950s devotion was forced in many ways, which brought with it a great deal of resentment. This was often masked with drinking: 1950s relationships involved a great deal of alcohol and violence. A return to the 1950s would also require that males conform to 1950s workplace expectations, which no-one really wants.

For another thing, attracting a devoted wife is primarily a matter of demonstrating sufficient rectitude oneself. Regardless of how corrupt one’s environment is, there are always men and women who have enough spiritual fortitude to express themselves despite their surroundings. Those who are best able to do this are the gods of the Clown World pantheon.

The spirit of Waifu will always exist, and will always be worshipped, as long as there are men who are unable to find real-life women who can meet their emotional needs. And, even if they do she will still be worshipped, because those real-life women will appear to them as avatars of Waifu herself.

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why Corporations Support Black Lives Matter When They Didn’t Support Occupy Wall Street

Western corporations are falling over themselves to show their support for Black Lives Matter. Professional sportsmen proudly display BLM logos on their shirts, television shows hold moments of silence for George Floyd, and the FaceBook and Twitter accounts of countless large entities have paid their respects. But no corporation did anything like this for Occupy Wall Street. This essay explains why.

The Occupy Wall Street movement began in September 2011 with a campout protest at New York’s Zuccotti Park. The protest was sparked by rising inequality in America, something that had increased sharply after the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08. Bank bailouts had ensured that the wealthy avoided any of the suffering from the crisis, and that the poor took the entire burden.

OWS’s most famous chant was “We are the 99%”. This referred to OWS’s belief that the top 1% of Americans were hoarding a grossly disproportionate amount of resources and power. Their fundamental motivation was to express outrage at this state of affairs in the hope of forcing change to a more equitable system. They made demands such as getting corporations and corporate lobbyists out of politics, granting the working class a greater share of production and reforming the banking system to restrict speculation.

The movement appealed to an entire generation of young people, who were just then beginning to understand that they were going to have a lower standard of living than their parents did. These young people saw in OWS the potential to arrest the relentless decline of their living standards by enabling them to come together to assert their collective interests.

This terrified the American Establishment.

If there’s any one single thing that the Establishment fears, it’s poor people coming together on the basis of class. Class solidarity is the only way that the people can form a broad enough front to work against inequality without being divided and conquered into impotence. The formation and expression of class solidarity, then, is a direct threat to the interests of the ruling class.

In the wake of Occupy Wall Street, the 1% came together and decided upon a strategy to prevent this from happening again. They realised that they had to pre-emptively divide and conquer the people because, left to their own devices, the people would inevitably organise and demand their right to an equitable share of production.

The greatest fear of the Establishment was the coalescence of the 99% under one banner. Having previously observed the degree of animosity that existed on account of racial tension, a plan became apparent: to divide the 99% up along racial lines. This was primarily to be achieved by pushing a racial oppression narrative that claimed that white people owed blacks reparations for past injustices.

Because the 1% owns the mainstream media, they simply directed their employees in the media to start pushing that narrative. And they did. The mainstream media everywhere stopped reporting on class issues entirely, and started reporting only on racial ones. Any case of racial injustice was blown up to seem an atrocity, and overcoming it a pressing issue, while class inequality was ignored completely.

After some years of this, OWS’s narrative of the 99% versus the 1% was overwhelmed by the Establishment’s narrative of black versus white. People stopped thinking in terms of class solidarity, and started thinking in terms of race. This was all by design.

Thinking in terms of race can never, ever lead to justice for the simple reason that many blacks and browns are middle-class while many whites are working-class. Fighting to improve the position of middle-class blacks and browns instead of that of poor people is unjust, and fighting to worsen the position of working-class whites instead of that of rich people is unjust. This fact is understood deeply by intelligent people.

So all attempts to increase racial consciousness must be treated with the deepest suspicion, as suspected attempts to destroy class consciousness. Every time someone pushes race conflict or a racial issue, the astute observer ought to ask if this is an attempt to distract from class issues. In the vast majority of cases, any racial issue being pushed will not really be worth attention.

This divide and conquer has now been ramped up to such a degree that the mainstream media now acts as if each person is their race first and foremost. If you are white, you’re on team Bad Guy and have to pay compensation. If you are black, you’re on team Good Guy and get to claim compensation. Your skin is your uniform, and your moral standing is dictated at birth by that skin’s melanin content.

The 1% more or less succeeded in their scheme to destroy class consciousness after Occupy Wall Street. Today, more people are concerned about what happened to George Floyd than by the unaffordability of housing (which is now out of control). Thanks to the mainstream media, most people can tell you about Black Lives Matter but few know how far their house-buying power has fallen in recent decades.

This is the reason why all of the big corporations support Black Lives Matter when they didn’t support Occupy Wall Street. Black Lives Matter pushes a narrative of racial division, of Team Black against Team White, and in doing so it splits the 99% down the centre, leaving them powerless against the predations of the 1%. Anyone who decries this racial narrative in favour of a class one is accused of not paying full respect to the oppression of blacks and browns, and is smeared as a racist.

It’s a perfect recipe for rendering the working class incapable of taking collective action against their rulers.

The basic rule is that any future movement seeking to bring the lower classes together against the Establishment will be opposed, and any future movement seeking to set the lower classes against each other will be supported. It can be predicted that any future movement promoting racial grievances, gender grievances or grievances relating to sexual orientation will be promoted widely by the mainstream media and supported by major corporations.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!