Genetic Infrastructure

There are several components of the wealth of nations. As Adam Smith wrote, it’s primarily a function of natural resources, human resources and quality laws/leadership. Writing in the late 18th Century long before Darwin, Smith didn’t know about natural or sexual selection, much less genes and DNA. His conception of human resources was based around education, and missed out one crucial element.

The crucial missing element: genetic infrastructure. If education consists of those memetic qualities within that nation that lead to wealth and prosperity, genetic infrastructure consists of those genetic qualities within that nation that lead to wealth and prosperity. It is the value of having good DNA.

The primary component of genetic infrastructure is intelligence (or, more precisely, the presence of those genes that lead to high intelligence). Contrary to popular belief, intelligence is mostly hereditary in adults – indeed, as the linked paper states, “Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits”.

Intelligence is the most powerful predictor of several different social outcomes. It is the strongest predictor of lifetime educational achievement and of lifetime criminal convictions. It’s also the strongest predictor of future wealth. All other things being equal, a high-IQ person with an average education will earn more wealth during their lifetime than an average-IQ person with a high education.

Furthermore, intelligence is the single most powerful predictor of future wealth on the national level. Not even natural resources come close to intelligence when predicting future wealth, as evidenced by the wealth of high-intelligence, low-resource countries like Japan, Germany and England, and the poverty of low-intelligence, high-resource countries like Nigeria, the Congo and Brazil.

A nation’s genetic infrastructure, then, is mostly a matter of intelligence. Other factors include physical health and strength, the degree of inbreeding and whether the phenotype expressed by the genes is suited to the physical environment, but these are comparatively minor.

Because a nation’s fortunes are so closely tied to the quality of its genetic infrastructure, understanding the details of that infrastructure allows us to make accurate predictions about that nation’s fortunes. This is particularly relevant if we can also measure changes in that genetic infrastructure, whether ongoing or expected.

For instance, if low-IQ people are outbreeding high-IQ people in a given nation, thereby weakening that nation’s genetic infrastructure, we can predict that outcomes typical for low-IQ people will become typical for that nation. We can predict that poverty, ignorance, crime and violence will all increase as the genetic infrastructure deteriorates.

On the other hand, an influx of high-IQ people to an area will strengthen that area’s genetic infrastructure. As such, we can predict that outcomes typical for high-IQ people will become typical for that area. Most examples of European colonisation fit into this category – the colonisation of 65IQ Australian Aborigines by 100IQ mostly British settlers is probably the most notable.

Of course, the genetic basis of intelligence is one of the greatest taboo subjects in the West today. Even winning a Nobel Prize in Biology does not permit a person to suggest that evolution has created human subgroups of different intelligence levels, as James Watson discovered.

Consequently, many will deny the very concept of genetic infrastructure, particularly blank-slatists, globalists, open-borders capitalists, Marxists and other biology deniers.

The truth is hard for many to accept, but it’s revealed clearly in the scientific literature. Wealth is primarily a function of intelligence, and intelligence is primarily genetic. Therefore, wealth is primarily a function of those genes that facilitate intelligence. Those genes – plus a few other, much less important factors – are what is known as genetic infrastructure.

Nations with a high-quality genetic infrastructure can easily rebuild even after their physical infrastructure is destroyed, as Japan and Germany did after World War II. Nations with a low-quality genetic infrastructure will disintegrate into poverty even if they somehow achieve a high level of physical infrastructure, as Argentina did in the 20th Century and South Africa did after 1994.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, 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, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Equatorial Mentality Vs. Polar Mentality

There are many different ways of dividing the people of the world into two groups. Men vs. women, East vs. West, K-selected vs. r-selected, industrialised vs. developing, whores vs. gangsters. This essay introduces another: equatorial mentality vs. polar mentality.

Equatorial climes, as anyone who has been to the tropics will know, are hot. Sunlight beats down directly from above. Near the Equator, it’s often above 20 degrees Celcius even at night. Sometimes living there can feel like living in a greenhouse.

Polar climes, by contrast, are cold. Sunlight strikes the surface of the Earth from the side. In wintertime, cities above the Arctic Circle have days where the Sun does not rise above the horizon at all (the “Polar Night”). This is where the real tundra begins, where the climate can only support small trees and bushes.

Contrary to popular belief, there’s more to the global temperature gradient than the simple fact that polar climes tend to be less sunny. For example, some cities in the Congo and Equitorial Guinea get only 1,500 yearly sunshine hours, whereas even Stockholm gets 1,800. The intensity of the sunlight is more important, particularly the intensity of sunlight per square metre.

Not every latitude of the surface of the Earth receives the same intensity of sunlight. Near the Equator, where the rays of the Sun strike the surface of the Earth at right angles, the sunlight is the most intense. The further one goes from the Equator to the poles, the more obtusely the sunlight strikes the surface, and the less intense it becomes.

The fact that the intensity of sunlight varies depending on latitude has immense ecological consequences – and, thereby, ethological consequences.

Because the sunlight is more intense at the Equator, and because the food chain is based on sunlight, the intensity of life is also greater there. Strong sunlight and warm temperatures are the most conducive to life, and so the Equator tends to feature jungles and rainforests that are teeming with insects and animals. This life must compete against other life for space to live.

At the Equator, therefore, the immediate challenge for anything living is against other living beings. Nearer the poles, by contrast, the immediate challenge is against the environment. There is much less life per square metre, and so much less danger from predators and parasites. The main dangers there are the cold and lack of easy food supplies.

This means that a different set of behaviour patterns had to evolve to meet the challenges of equatorial climates, as compared to polar climates. These behavioural patterns evolved alongside particular mindsets. There is an equatorial mindset that is more compatible with equatorial behaviour patterns, and there is a polar mindset that is more compatible with polar behaviour patterns.

The equatorial mindset doesn’t think ahead. There are no winters near the Equator, so there is no possibility of freezing to death. As such, there is no need to stack firewood for the winter, or to build a solid, warm, airtight house. Fruit is plentiful all year round in the tropics, so there’s no need to plan for the long-term storage of it. As such, there is no evolutionary pressure selecting for long-term thinking.

The polar mindset, by contrast, is always thinking ahead. It has to. Polar winters will kill everything not prepared for them. It’s common for Northern Europe, parts of North America and parts of Northern Asia to experience winter temperatures below -30 Celcius. What’s worse, winters in such places can last for six months. Anyone who doesn’t plan adequately for such weather will die.

These contrasting mindsets explain the contrasting impressions that some people make on each other.

The equatorial mindset is that, if there’s nothing to do, just chill out. Tomorrow will be much like today so, if there are no pressing matters, one should just take it easy and not risk overexertion. This is why people in Equatorial countries are often found sleeping during the middle of the day.

This is often interpreted as lazy by the polar mindset. The reality, however, is that when it’s hot, it can be dangerous to use too much energy. Heatstroke is an ever-present threat in tropical regions. Anyone who pushes themselves too hard is liable to pass out. So taking it easy whenever possible makes sense near the Equator.

The polar mindset, by contrast, is to always keep oneself busy. Sooner or later, winter will come, so if there are no pressing matters, one should prepare. Chop firewood, fix the house, gather food – and do it now because it will soon be too cold and dark. This is why people in Europe, North America and Northern Asia work long hours. The polar mindset doesn’t feel comfortable unless it’s working.

This is often interpreted as neurosis by the equatorial mindset. ‘We only have one life, so why not relax and enjoy it?’ reasons the equatorial mind, which doesn’t understand why the polar mind works so hard when the final reward for all of us is death. The hunger of the polar mind to achieve things and to impose order upon the world seems inhuman to the equatorial mind.

Like feminine and masculine, the equatorial mindset and the polar mindset will often clash. The polar mindset tends to accumulate more money, and this provokes resentment in the equatorial mindset. The equatorial mindset has a tendency to act impulsively, and the violence and theft that results provokes resentment in the polar mindset.

The equatorial mindset vs. the polar mindset is one of the great divisions in the human species, and understanding it goes a long way to understanding human behaviour.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Biology Denial

One of the most influential social phenomena in the modern world is also one of the least understood. It is the widespread denial of the laws of biology and of the biological reality in which the human species has evolved. Although this might seem, to some, to be an academic point, denial of biological reality can have an immense impact on a person’s values and political opinions.

The reality is that human society and behaviour is primarily a biological phenomenon.

Psychologists today know that all the warring and aggression shown by humans in today’s society is little more than adaptations to a biological past where violence was commonplace. In a state of Nature, resources are scarce. Because of this scarcity, it can happen that multiple creatures desire them. When that happens, conflict is the inevitable result.

The same is true of co-operation and love. It’s been well established, ever since the publication of Edward O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of Earth, that it’s impossible to make sense out of human history without understanding that the human species evolved sociality for the sake of overcoming survival challenges.

Human society, then, is most easily understood as a web of mutual aid that increases the survival and reproductive opportunities of all of its members. The more cohesive groups drive out the less cohesive ones. The Rambo-style individualist doesn’t survive a state of Nature, because one serious injury will kill him. The tribe that works together, on the other hand, can easily recover from non-fatal injuries to individuals.

However, this neat and elegant explanation for much of the complexity of the world does not appeal to some. There are some out there who deny that human behaviour is analogous to primate behaviour, or that human behaviour has evolved to meet survival and reproductive challenges in the natural world, or that significant biodiversity exists within the human species, or that ethology and evolutionary psychology are valid approaches that can make accurate predictions.

This insanity is known as biology denial.

As it turns out, there are several reasons why a person would deny biological science.

One of the most common reasons is narcissism. This is particularly true when it comes to evolution by natural selection. Many people don’t like to think that they evolved from a common ancestor with today’s monkeys. They prefer to think of other animals as a different category to themselves, something categorically lower.

This is related to another major reason to deny biology – religious reasons. The fundamentalist religious nutter believes that Yahweh created the entire Universe, perhaps as recently as 6,000 years ago, and therefore there’s no such thing as evolution. As anyone who knows anything about biology can tell you, if you deny evolution you deny all of biology. This is the reason for the “never say dinosaur” strain of Christcuckery.

The main reason why people deny biology is for political reasons.

This is most obvious when it comes to the subject of race and IQ. Every primary school student learns that there are no two things within Nature that are exactly the same – no two snowflakes, no two cats, no two mountains, no two races. Because biological life evolves to fill different ecological niches, the characteristics of life within those niches is always different.

On the subject of race and IQ, however, the truth is just about the most politically incorrect subject that it’s possible to speak of. As per Ibram X. Kendi, one of the world’s foremost biology deniers, “the races are meaningfully the same in their biology and there are no genetic racial differences”. Anyone who disagrees is cancelled.

In reality, Blank Slate Theory (what Kendi is pushing) is a form of biology denial, because it denies the heritability of natural characteristics. This goes against the available evidence, which is why Steven Pinker was able to meticulously and comprehensively demolish it in his book The Blank Slate. That biology denial can reach pathological proportions is evident from the magnitude of the evidence in favour of heritability.

Because biology denial is political, it varies in intensity depending on the aspect of biology under discussion.

Some people deny it totally. One notorious case involves a university student who believed that the reason why men are stronger than women is because they are encouraged to play more sports as children. Most children figure out when very young that there are significant physical differences between men and women. That an adult might deny this is incredible.

The modern transexual fad is another example of biology denial. Some heterosexual men are getting called bigots for preferring biological women over biological men pretending to be women, as if there was truly no difference between the two.

That men are naturally more violent than women, on the other hand, is accepted without question. That this heightened propensity towards violence necessitates exclusion of males from female spaces is, likewise, accepted without question. Any degree of biology can be denied, but whether it is depends on who would benefit from the denial.

All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The ultimate end effect of biology denial is delusion and suffering. As Philip K Dick wrote: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Westerners are now discovering that human biodiversity is a real thing, and that immigrants from low-IQ nations can’t simply be educated to behave exactly the same way as everyone else.

Biology deniers are so twisted up in their irrational thinking that they believe Asian immigrants to America to have white privilege. Asian students in America frequently find themselves having to get better grades than non-Asians to access the same privileges. Sometimes they need to get even better grades than white students.

Biology denial can only lead to inaccurate perceptions of reality, and thereby to a failure to accurately predict human behaviour, and thereby to political policy that harms instead of helps. Had it been widely understood that intelligence was genetic and that some human populations are an entire standard deviation or more less intelligent than whites, the mass immigration of cheap labour from the Third World to the West might never have happened.

At time of writing, biology denial is one of the greatest threats to our ability to wisely navigate the ship of civilisation through the challenges facing us.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Own Or Be Owned

Most Westerners are starting to realise that their positions are little better than those of chattel slaves. The average Western worker now understands that they will never own their own home, no matter how hard they work, because the house price to income ratio is too high. Awareness of this state of affairs is causing widespread misery.

If you control land, you also control the people on that land. It follows that anyone who doesn’t own land is the slave of those who do. Non-landowners, as a class, are effectively put to work by the landowner class. Proof comes from the fact that the average hours worked to pay rent alone is not much less today than the average hours worked full stop during the medieval era, despite centuries of labour-saving technological advancements.

If you don’t own land, you have to pay rent to someone who does, otherwise you die of exposure to the elements. If you try to live on land that you don’t own without paying rent, the Police will come to smash you and throw you out into the street. So in order to make money to pay rent, you have to labour for a second landowner, who takes profits out of your productivity. Then you have to pay income taxes to the Government, representing the landowner class in the abstract.

This arrangement was tolerable when the worker had enough money left over, after profits, taxes and rents, to enjoy a decent standard of living with a decent amount of leisure time. But this hasn’t been the case for decades now. Moreover, it is getting worse. The average worker now labours all week, often 50-60 hours, and is left with almost nothing after the landowners have taken their cuts.

The reason why this state of affairs is so heavily resented is because it’s reminiscent of a state of barbarism. To labour all week and be left with nothing is similar to the system that existed when we were earlier primates, where might makes right and anything you can extort out of another person is legitimately yours.

In a state of Nature, your options are: own or be owned.

Males of sexually reproducing species compete for territorial dominance, because this implies control of the resources in that territory. Whoever can establish that he is willing and able to kill the other also wins the ability to control all the resources of that other. Because females of sexually reproducing species are primarily concerned that their mates demonstrate a capacity for resource acqusition, there is a strong incentive for males to own as much as they can.

In human society, the most valuable thing you can own is other people. Ownership of women allows you to control reproduction. Ownership of men allows you to control resources. Ownership of both allows you to control society. Owning people is heavily incentivised because the more people you own, the more secure your position.

Most people in our supposedly free societies are owned, little different from livestock. This is especially true of those who labour all week but are left with nothing after profits, taxes, rents and basic living expenses are paid. This isn’t categorically different to how a unit of livestock produces e.g. a certain volume of milk but is not paid for it.

Some other people are owners. In every stable society, this ownership class raises a police force from among the owned. This police force is then paid, and paid well, to enforce the ownership claims of the ownership class. Without such a system, a society will collapse into violence over control of land. As such, a police force that smashes anyone who questions land ownership rights is essential for stability.

Wealth, throughout history, was primarily a matter of how many other people you owned. If you were the patriarch of a large family, you might control a dozen other people. A chieftain of an average village might control a dozen dozen. The lord of a fiefdom might control a dozen dozen dozen.

Today, people are owned indirectly, through owning the land underneath them. This allows for great profits without having to go through the hassle of managing people. The owners of tenement housing don’t have to worry about what their tenants do with their days, as long as they pay the rent and don’t damage the housing stock.

If life as a non-human animal is kill or be killed, life as a human is own or be owned. Class and caste systems can be seen as ways to formalise the ownership arrangement so that societies suffered less internal conflict.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 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 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, 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, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!