The Three Horsemen of An Evolutionary Apocalypse, Part 3

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.

In this final installment, I will cover, briefly, the false signal sets of video games and other virtual worlds and conclude with a road map out of the mire and despair.

Every human has, to some extent, a capacity for self-evaluation. Thus, it will not do for us to simply vegetate with fast food and porn and achieve happiness. Humans require the active social approval of other humans for happiness. Unfortunately, artificial worlds can provide this as well.

Games like World of Warcraft and other massively multiplayer online games (MMOG’s) provide a community of individuals engaged in fantasy lives lived out online. Unlike the days of my youth, which might involve a couple of hours wasted with friends playing Tecmo Bowl, online MMOG gamers spend time measured in days per month rather than hours per day. The internal world of the MMOG demands this kind of dedication for success, as other players who invest more time in the game gain social status at the expense of those who do not.

The power of this virtual reality can be externally verified through economics, as the emergent market for “virtual goods” matures. Objects captured in-game by the player can be sold in a marketplace for real money, cash. Clearly MMOG’s are more than “just a game”.

Thus, we see evolution yet again turned on its head. What should be socially ostracized (overweight young men frittering their life away in front of a meaningless game) is socially rewarded in the internal mechanics of the game. The gamer is sucked in, as the more time is spent in the game, the greater the player’s relative status is in the game world as compared to the real world. By day, pizza delivery boy.  By night, elite Orc warrior. It is very hard to disengage from any activity where social rewards are provided, and the human brain, with its great imaginative and suspension-of-disbelief capacity, will put up little resistance to engaging with a virtual world with the appropriate social incentives.

Indeed, in some MMOG-like environments (for example, Second Life, more of a virtual island of sorts for social interactions than a game per-se) we see two of our horsemen in synergy, as the environment allows for virtual sex between the players’ model-perfect avatars.

So what is to be done?

Clearly, the genie is out of the bottle. Fast food, pornography and MMOG’s are not going anywhere and will likely improve their allure as new technologies come online. The Internet is clearly impossible to control. Even content universally condemned and legislated against by almost all of humanity, child pornography, is easily locatable online. Banning these things is simply not an option.

A friend of mine once proposed to me in college that in the future, the human race would consist of two groups. A large group spending all of their leisure time attached to virtual reality-type environments while working menial jobs a minimum number of hours to pay for their basic needs, living out impossible fantasies in cyberspace, and a smaller, wealthy group who run the society and are rewarded in reality for their preference for it. I propose a new human trait, “reality preference,” to indicate those individuals with a strong predilection for avoiding false signals rationally and seeking after true success in this world.

The question as to who will inherit the future is simple: who is jacking in and who’s jacking out? Who’s having the children?

By and large, white nationalists are more jacked in to virtual worlds than jacked out. From what I can tell, the typical WN is an atheist or agnostic materialist with an intellectual fetish for taboo topics like racial differences in IQ and (sometimes) the overrepresentation of Jewish individuals in the leadership of the West’s decline. They are less likely to have children than non-WN whites.

White nationalism, as it currently exists as a movement on the ground, is not sufficient to produce viable, high-fertility families.

I think there are several reasons for this. First, is my belief that an atheistic mindset, independent of its truth value, inevitably produces a sense of despair, a paralyzing emotion not conducive to the hope for the future necessary to motivate marriage and child-rearing. I offer the following quote from Bertrand Russell as an illustration:

[I believe] That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of the universe in ruins. . . . Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built. (Why I Am Not a Christian)

I don’t know about you, but that’s not a lot of motivation to get out of bed in the morning.  Research into the fertility (technically fecundity) of atheists bears this out. For example, a German study comparing church service attendance to fecundity:

Many atheists will retort that such trends can easily be explained by IQ differences, i.e. that intelligent people are more likely to be atheists and intelligent people have fewer children. The idea is that atheists’ low fertility is part of a larger dysgenic trend rather than particular to atheism. The data disagree with this hypothesis.

The Inductivist blog recently pointed out that in the General Social Survey, the correlation between WORDSUM (a ten question vocabulary test that is highly g-loaded for fluent English speakers) and frequency of religious service attendance was 0.00 (i.e. absolutely no correlation).  Similarly, education levels and religious service attendance were correlated at a statistically insignificant 0.02.

In a follow-up post, Inductivist further explores the data, this time looking directly at belief in God. He finds that belief in God almost completely mitigates the naturally dysgenic higher fertility among the lower-IQ cohort. Among low-IQ people, belief or non-belief makes almost no difference in fertility levels. For example, low IQ atheists have 2.54 children on average and low IQ believers have 2.62, with random variance along the belief/non-belief axis. Among the high-IQ, however, atheists have only 1.81 children on average while believers have 2.32.

Thus, it appears that the atheist argument that religion is dysgenic is exactly the opposite: religion has no effect on the fertility of the low IQ, while atheism is associated with low fertility among the high IQ.

Atheism is dysgenic because it seems to cause high IQ people to have fewer children.

As Harry Seabrook has commented, if atheistic materialism is real, then my wife is just a piece of meat who helps me spread my genes; if another piece of meat comes along offering a better opportunity to spread my genes, why wouldn’t I take it? Thankfully, most atheists do not take their reasoning to this extreme, but the corroding effects of such a mindset on the self-sacrificial spirit necessary for family life is self-evident.

At the very least, WN atheist materialists are fighting against the grain to become successful husbands and fathers of large families. The history of the scientific racialist, hard right movement is littered with examples of brilliant men who wrote great books but died childless.

More problematically, some of our best thinkers have pointed out the structural problems inherent in marrying and child-rearing in the current Dark Age. F. Roger Devlin leads the field in his descriptions of the sexual dystopia of our society. In a foreshadowing of the current interest in “Game” as a countermeasure, Devlin discussed several years ago the implications of feminism as the bottom 75% of women compete for the top 25% of men.

However, Devlin’s prescriptions are unacceptable. He seems to advocate that WN men (or men in general) simply refuse to marry or have children until the abuses of feminism and the divorce courts are corrected. This may be the principled stand of a Stoic in the face of adversity, but it is not a rational evolutionary strategy.

White nationalists need to get some skin in the game by marrying and having children, and soon. Talking about white dispossession and dysgenic decline without actually having white children is kind of pathetic. I’m reminded of the pathetic idiots who listen to sports talk radio endlessly obsessing over baseball statistics, but none have actually played baseball at the professional level. There has to be another way.

Let me introduce you to a modified evolutionary strategy I like to call “Postmodern macro-utilitarianism.”

Its postulates are simple. First, the truth is more complex than our human minds, so an absolute search for truth absent foundational assumptions is meaningless. Second, there is a marketplace for these foundational assumptions among communities of people, and the measure of success is the quantity and quality of children produced by said community. Third, one should determine which community one wants to be a part of before seeking to determine what one believes. Since beliefs drive results, a pure Darwinian strategy is to allow results to drive beliefs.

These foundational assumptions and beliefs form barriers between communities, but more importantly offer integration into viable, high-fertility groups. No white family can go it alone.

To my view, there are three viable American communities (all religious, all high fertility) where white racial nationalists may find a home: Mormonism, traditional Catholicism and the Reformed churches.

I personally believe Mormonism and Catholicism to be problematic because of the top-down orientation of their structures. All groups, of course, have leaders that seek to sell out their parishioners and cater to the globalist elite, but the Mormon and Catholic churches have the means to enforce these pronoucements. The Reformed community, on the other hand, is less centralized and more compatible with our Anglo-Saxon culture.

For those not familiar with the taxonomy of American Protestantism, the Reformed include conservative Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed Churches, and other miscellaneous groups unified by three general traits: they are highly conservative, highly literate, and based upon Calvinist theology.

The relatively small Reformed community (several million in the US) probably produces at least twice the serious scholarly work as the much larger Southern Baptist Convention and Methodist churches. This is not the dumbed-down Rick Warren Christianity many WN’s associate with mainstream believers.

Scaling up to a larger group, the homeschool community (which has its roots in and significant overlap with the Reformed community in many areas) is another group with high investment parenting and high fertility. Sure, many of them believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but these kids are actually reading the great documents of our civilization instead of a two paragraph summary in a textbook written by a Marxist.

Practically, there exists in both of these communities (and to some extent in the conservative evangelical churches as well) significant numbers of women who explicitly reject feminism. Finding a way to meet women untainted by feminism is a key challenge for men looking to raise a family. The world was created in seven days, and a wife must obey her husband. Which one of those doesn’t matter and which one makes all the difference in the world?

Recently, I attended an engagement party for a young couple. Both come from homeschool families. The prospective groom comes from a family of eight, and the attendees at the party were largely from the same pool of evangelical homeschoolers. At the table where my wife and I sat, one couple had four children and another couple had nine children, seven girls and two boys. The mother of the nine said to my wife, “I think it’s good for them to have so many siblings and help out with the babies because it helps them develop the sense of self-sacrifice they’ll need to be a good wife and mom.” My wife and I  have three children and plan to have at least one more; never would I have thought that my goal of four would sound paltry in any dinner party group.

This, my friends, is the future of Western Civilization; when moms are helping their daughters to develop a sense of “self-sacrifice” to serve their husbands, we have arrived at a total rejection of feminism. These are the only white communities with aggressive birthrates, people who are having children like they own the future. Not mindless breeding like the lower classes, but intelligent, middle class white people intentionally having as many children as they can. The fathers have authority over their children, as most practice courtship, in which any potential suitor must ask permission to spend time with a daughter.

And the kids! Untainted by the public school ghetto culture, they are way ahead of their peers academically. But even more importantly, because they do not interact with their peer group all day, they are socialized more like adults at an earlier age. The fourteen and fifteen year olds will have an adult conversation with you instead of acting like you’re from a different planet, with a surprising level of self-confidence because they do not play the zero-sum popularity game at a school.

I’ve often wondered if it is a bigger challenge to convert fecund homeschoolers to racialism than to convert typical racialists to fecundity.

The universal goods are the good, the beautiful and the true. I think humans are least equipped to objectively determine the truth, but we are pretty good at seeing good and beauty. The goodness and beauty of the homeschooling community might convince you to ease up a little bit on the elusive search for truth, not on quantifiable questions like racial differences but cosmological questions. Perhaps expose yourself to their literature and ideas, spend some time among them and see what happens. This is better than Pascal’s wager, which consoled the struggling doubter to try to believe in hopes of rewards in the next life. Adopt the beliefs of a conservative Christian and you gain access to a community untainted by feminism, a place where functional white women and families exist. The afterlife is icing on the cake.

Religion, then, provides a solution for the question of false signal sets. Its rules and regulations define behavior boundaries that serve to force its members to pursue fitness directly instead of following false signals.

Christian theology talks much about man’s struggle with his two natures, one more divine and rational, the other fleshly and irrational. Man’s rationality is merely emergent and largely serves its master in the lower parts of the brain. Religion, then, can be seen not as a primitive artifact of less advanced development, but rather functionally as a system of thought that enables man to struggle against false signals of fitness and enable some progress by the emergent rational neocortex. By making individual men personally accountable for their behavior upon threat of eternal punishment, it enables the weak, waffling neocortex to wield a large club to beat down the wild dogs of the lower reptilian brain: yes, pleasure now, but much more pain later!

Christian religion, in both its conservative Reformed and Catholic varieties, is the least primitive and most refined, its tenets interpreted and expanded by the cream of our race over nearly two millennia. It offers practically no evolutionary disadvantages to adherents, and many practical advantages.

For materialists who insist that all of their beliefs be proved, the choice is between what you perceive as truth and life, i.e. evolutionary success. The former is rational, the latter is meta-rational. What choice must a consistent Darwinian make?