A few observations:

1. Overall, it seems to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the heart of Red State Texas and its high school football obsession. As an anthropological study, it is hard to beat.

2. The producer is Peter Berg, a New Yorker who apparently has a first cousin who lives in a small Texas town and became fascinated with the football cult. Not sure of Berg’s ethnicity, but the show is remarkable in its realistic portrayal of the Christian culture that still permeates rural Texas. The show does not exhibit the typical Jewish producer’s allergy to all things Christian unless it involves taking the name of Christ in vain. FNL is so enjoyable because it portrays our people as they are, not as caricatures. In addition, the sets are dead-on perfect. The houses, the furniture, the settings are all genuine Texas small town.

3. The best positive of the show is the portrayal of the head coach’s relationship with his wife. Their relationship is warm, supportive, and highly sexual. It’s unusual these days to have a mainstream television show portray heterosexual marriage in a positive way. The coach character in particular is stand-out, the epitome of a principled white male who does the right thing and doesn’t back down from adversity.

4. The first season covered at least four politically incorrect plot elements:

(a) A new black quarterback, a Katrina refugee, comes to the town, recruited by local boosters. Once on the team, he acts like a total thug, but the coach displaces the white quarterback to give it to the black, who seems to have more natural talent. During the game, the black player’s ego gets in the way of winning, the coach realizes the error of his ways and pulls the black out of the game and puts in his humble, team-player white quarterback. The Panthers go on to win the game and the Katrina refugee eventually leaves town to play for another school (and re-appears in full thug form as the Panthers’ opposition quarterback in the season finale state championship game).

(b) This same thug quarterback, before leaving town, goes to the local teen hangout (a burger joint) and calls one of the Mexican players a wetback. The Mexican player gets really upset but does not attack the thug. Later, a brainy white kid makes a snide, but non-racist, remark to the Mexican about the general meaninglessness of football. The Mexican, still smarting from the thug’s insult, follows the white kid outside and beats him up so bad he ends up in the hospital; the next day the Mexican is arrested at practice. The rest of the episode features the Mexican claiming it was the white kid who called him a wetback, and that was why he beat him up. The coach initially trusts the Mexican kid, but once he finds out the truth, he kicks the Mexican off the team permanently. I have never heard of ANY mainstream television show portraying a fake hate crime by a minority, even though fakes are the substantial majority of real-life hate crime accusations.

(c) The showboat black running back on the team, who calls himself Smash, tells his mother he wants to take an SAT prep course that costs $1300. The mother can’t afford it but instead enlists their pastor’s help who then takes up an offering at the black church the following Sunday. The black player then takes the money and buys steroids. I can’t think of any show that portrays blacks this realistically, in their full depressing depravity.

(d) Late in the season, an assistant coach tells a reporter that he thinks black players like Smash have a “junkyard dog” mentality that makes them better runners, whereas white players are more “creative” and make better leaders and quarterbacks. In the resulting uproar, black players threaten to quit the team unless the coach gives in and fires his assistant. The coach ignores their threat, and even has white kids from the JV team fill in for the blacks. The coach also stands by his friend the assistant coach, refusing to fire him (even after the asst. coach offers his resignation for the good of the team, the head coach refuses it, saying not firing him over the remarks was “the right thing to do”), and the show portrays the assistant coach as a whole, complex person who truly cares about the kids, not a hateful racist. In addition, the head coach nor none of the main characters ever deny what he said was true, but they just say “what you said was stupid” or “you can’t talk about the black-white thing”. This is probably exactly how coaches in Texas would talk in private. No hand-wringing or shock at the statement, because it’s obviously true.

Before the next game, the black players relent and rejoin the team, because the white coach refuses to give in to their demands. The subsequent game ends in a riot due to the high tensions and the game is called for Dillon after the 3rd quarter, infuriating the home team and town. Dillon players leave town quickly hoping to avoid any more confrontation, but as they make their way out of town local cops stop and decide to harass the team, specifically demanding to arrest the black player on Dillon’s team they think started the riot. The “racist” assistant coach gets out of the bus and confronts the local cops, telling them if they do not have a warrant they will not arrest one of his players. The black players then realize the error of their ways in overreacting to the coach’s statement, and the head black player, Smash, and the assistant coach reconcile.

I have never seen in any mainstream production a more sympathetic, balanced treatment of an individual who utters a racist statement, and portrays positively those that resist the calls for his head. Nor have I ever seen a portrayal of whites being victorious in not giving in to the demands of offended blacks.

5. The casting is almost perfect. Apparently they hired a special Texas casting director for many of the characters, and it’s just dead-on. So many of the characters correspond to archetypes of the larger-than-life individuals who inhabit the South and Texas. As one historian put it, the bravado, faith, and patriotism that characterizes the region is “better than sanity” and this is fully portrayed (the local car dealer and his ubiquitous dead animals on walls, for example; many wealthy Texan males spend millions pursuing large game all over the world). This same character, upset at his ex-wife for dating another man, says “I don’t understand what you see in that tree-hugging idiot who makes seven dollars an hour at a health food store. I will not sit by and see my children turn into Communists.”

6. Two minor critiques: there was a minor early plot element where the small town mayor is portrayed as a lesbian. The head coach’s wife is recruited to help in her re-election campaign, but the coach disapproves, both because he hates politicians and he’s “uncomfortable” with his wife being around the mayor. This plot element seemed somewhat random and was not pursued further in the first season. Second, there is a near-miss interracial relationship that is quickly broken up by the black boy’s mother who runs them out of the house scolding her son “Don’t you bring no white girl in this house”. . . in any case, this plot element is isolated and confined to one episode.

7. The second season seems less promising, as the teen drama elements seem to be overpowering the football-driven plot. However, the first season was solid. Not appropriate for children, of course.

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?

First it would be helpful to examine the nature of sexuality itself, particularly male sexuality. I think it best approached by analogy to electricity. All of the wonderful electronic wonders of our age are driven by a very simply physical law: the insatiable desire for electrons to move from a cathode to an anode. They always choose the path of least resistance, and electrical engineers exploit this physical property of matter to produce everything from a basic ceiling fan to the computer I’m using to type this article.

It is undeniable that the Caucasian male sex drive is the engine of history. The genius of white men is a result of testosterone’s drive-enabling mental state combined with a reasonably high average population IQ and a higher capacity to produce geniuses through greater population variability. It could be that white males occupy a genetic “sweet spot” of reasonably high testosterone (as compared with Asian males) and reasonably high IQ, and this golden balance is what gives Western societies their advantage over Eastern civilizations, despite the latter’s higher average IQ. We have both the capacity and the drive to achieve great things.

One must wonder, then, what would happen to a society (and this affects all societies, not just Western ones), where men can have sexual gratification of the most graphic sort on-demand, continuously, effortlessly. Compare this to the numerous accounts of the medieval period of unconsummated love between a married lady and a knight, relationships more than Platonic but less than overtly romantic, and the great deeds such ladies inspired in gallant knights. Like an iPhone, the flow of current (i.e. sexual gratification) in such a relationship is strictly economized to optimize the real objective of the whole enterprise: the accomplishment of great deeds.

Historical Western limitations concerning sex are practically more of a testament to the power of sex than any sort of prudishness. As Solomon said (Proverbs 6:27), if a man takes fire into his bosom, can he expect his clothes to not be burned?

What would happen if I disassembled my iPhone and connected a small copper wire from the anode of the battery to the cathode? The current would choose that least path of resistance and all of the good produced by its journey by more tortuous paths would be lost. To what extent is the temptation of on-demand unlimited pornography, which is the situation every Internet-connected male is in, sapping the energy needed to grow families and push further into the technological frontier?

As a adherent of human microevolution, I know that incentives matter, and sexual incentives particularly so. Some creatures survive, and a subset of those reproduce. Sex is the signaling system that is supposed to reward procreation, and it is because of procreation’s singular evolutionary importance that the sexual signaling system is so powerful and pleasurable. It also implies that any twisting of wires in this system is going to have huge negative implications.

Pornography provides a payoff of sexual pleasure with nothing accomplished. There is no procreation, no love or devotion between husband and wife prerequisite for the healthy psychological development of children.

Pornography, through infinite variety, can even offer greater pleasure than monogamous sex, hitting the rewind button on our evolutionary development.

White men sit at a precipice evolutionarily. We are capable of the high-investment parenting (i.e. monogamy) necessary to sustain our civilizations, but still feel the pull of our lower evolutionary forebears. We are neither here nor there, and this tension between r and K strategies is omnipresent. To resist the dark forces of r was hard enough in our traditional medieval villages, where temptation was tempered by the threat of social ostracism for non-conformance, a sort of self-enforcing social contract that kept the village on the straight and narrow K path. Now the r haunts our every waking, solitary moment, always tempting with genetic specimens caricatured by technology to exploit our sexual preferences beyond the norm of real life. Pornography offers infinite variety, a key pleasure payoff for r strategies. This “variety” is of a much different sort than the medieval village. Let me explain.

Porn is an industry uniquely suited to the strengths of Jews. For its efficient production, it requires a level of exploitation and cruelty to women that most white males (in sufficient quantities to dominate a given industry) simply lack. It takes a cruel, Middle Eastern, woman-hating religion and culture to produce the stuff. This Jewish dominance leads to other consequences.

A friend of mine once pointed out that the degeneracy of Broadway plays and musicals, now almost obsessed with various sexual perversions and paraphilias (particularly homosexuality), cannot be attributed merely to a primarily homosexual market, a mere 10% at most of the Jewish population. He pointed out that the main market for Broadway productions actually consists of heterosexual Jews, and in this we see a key difference between Jews and non-Jews. Many Jewish heterosexual men enjoy watching homosexuals, transvestites, and other assorted freaks prance around a stage singing and dancing in mock irony. That which disgusts heterosexual European men entertains Jewish men.

So the variety which the porn market demands will inevitably be a Jewish variety. Some anti-pornography crusaders have claimed that the process of orgasm, with its intense chemical payload in the brain, causes a permanent imprinting of the sexual stimulus into the brain. If this is true, droves of Western men are having their minds imprinted with sexual stimuli produced from Jewish sexual deviancy.

The infinite appetite of the r strategy thus fed, it is easy for the K strategy to be discarded. From the reptilian brain’s point of view, sex is frequent and with high quality partners. Why bother with trying to please a wife, a real woman with stretch marks, needs, opinions and perhaps a little cellulite?

Sadly, not even the fantasy partners are as they appear. The advent of voice shifting technology (hardware where “talent” with other “assets” other than world-class singing ability — think Britney Spears — can be made to sound perfectly on pitch) has revolutionized pop music. Similarly, new filters and algorithms in video processing are coming online to make human bodies appear firmer, smooth and more “alive” and desirable than real life.

But what of the K strategy? Simply put, few men will now pursue it successfully, compromised internally by r temptations through pornography and externally through a hostile, feminist society and legal environment, as our own F. Roger Devlin has demonstrated. Part of pornography’s psychological appeal is its provision to males of a fantasy woman interested in selflessly providing sexual pleasure.

Feminism, and I think Devlin would agree, as one of its effects has caused women to become more self-focused sexually and has probably resulted in fewer normal sexually satisfying relationships between men and women. This contrast between the willing women of porn and the often cold and cruel behavior of the top 75% of women spurning the lower 75% of men in the modern sexual dystopia makes pornography all the more desirable to the average man. Men with their r-bias take it too far the other way into the unachievable sexual fantasies of pornography, but nevertheless there exists a population of men out there who would be more satisfied with a flesh-and-blood wife if she were not out whoring herself to the nearest alpha male.

All of this paints a dark picture, and it gets darker still. One might imagine that an obese, porn-addicted white male might at times reflect on his reality and become a little discouraged, perhaps enough to inspire him to a sort of Stoicism to make life the best it can be among the ruins. Yet with another click of the mouse he can enter the self-referential world of video games, and receive yet another set of false fitness signals to quell his discontent.

In the next installment we will cover this and my thoughts on how to live a life resisting these temptations in the late, great dystopic American empire.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Drunken Silenus, c. 1618 (Alte Pinakothek, Munich)

As a tentative evolutionist, I must acknowledge limitations for human progress due to certain unchanging characteristics of men. Contrary to the blank-slate theoreticians of the post-Enlightenment, man is not a fundamentally rational or good creature.

Evolutionists of the racialist stripe, however, sometimes indulge in their own wishful thinking, grasping at Nietzschean straws about “supermen” seeking their own evolutionary destiny. This is but the Enlightenment error with a naturalistic veneer. No creature, including man, is truly naturally rational in the sense of pursuing fitness directly, but rather relies on a set of signals that merely represent fitness. While these signals may have been more-or-less reliable in the original environment for which they were designed, they have become increasingly dysgenic in the contemporary world.

As a Christian and a Calvinist, I see man as a fallen creature who, short of the supernatural, will degrade himself progressively with animalistic urges even unto death. Without the threat of supernatural accountability, men will, given the opportunity, seek to gratify their appetites for these false signals even if they are rationally aware that these are paths to destruction, not fitness. Even with a belief in supernatural accountability, men will still struggle their entire lives to combat false signals from their lower brains with explicit pursuit of fitness from their neocortex.

In this series I will explore three of these false signals: fast food (or more generally, the obesity epidemic), pornography, and video games. The evolutionary cul-de-sac before us is represented by a 20 to 40-something male in our society who consumes Taco Bell for nutrition, Internet porn for sex, and seeks fulfillment through the simulated accomplishments of video games.

Fair disclosure: I am agnostic about claims of human origins, finding both theistic evolution and intelligent design to be compelling but mutually contradictory arguments. Thus, like many evolutionists, I will use terms like “designed” and “evolved” interchangeably but any particular use of these words should not be an interpretation of my yet still unformed opinion on these matters. I will also note that either of these beliefs is compatible with race realism. Race realism is such a blindingly obvious fact (for those sufficiently rational to overcome the peer pressure against it) that it is akin to acknowledging that birds have feathers, which they obviously do whether evolved or designed.

Fast Food and Obesity

Man finds foods attractive on a sliding scale more-or-less correlating with calorie density. The reason for this is not hard to grasp: in times of scarcity, a healthy appetite for calorie-dense foods, when they were available, would result in an individual more likely to build up fat deposits in the good times in preparation for the bad. For primal man the name of the game was caloric intake for survival.

Thanks to Western science, food is now plentiful beyond the wildest hopes of our ancestors. Our most serious nutritional problem is now obesity, as the Darwinian free market provides a cornucopia of choices perfectly matched to our primal instincts. Outlets such as Burger King and Taco Bell offer plentiful meat, cheese, starches and sauces to satisfy our desires for high-density, high-variety food. These companies spend millions on research and development to determine which combinations of flavors will most stimulate our senses of smell and taste.

Yet there is a twist in our design. Implanted deep inside each of us is an innate idea of the ideal of the human form. This ideal, for some reason, is not that of the obese which is of necessity the consequence of human desire matched with unlimited food. However, this does not seem to make much sense. If these desires evolved in a time of scarcity, why wouldn’t more of a good thing (fat deposits) be itself a good and attractive thing to our sexual natures? I am happy to accept it as it is, but I’m sure evolutionists have a clever explanation.

My guess: the opportunities in our primal world for obesity would be non-existent, even if theoretically such a state might offer additional marginal fitness, though at some extreme the acute effect on health and mobility would quickly supersede any benefit from increased stored calories. However, if human microevolution has indeed accelerated over the last 10,000 years (as theorized in the groundbreaking new book The 10,000 Year Revolution), one would expect obesity in early civilization to be associated with status, and status to be associated with sexual attraction.

Since older, fatter men would tend to have higher status in early civilizations, you might expect women to have developed some tolerance for such a male phenotype. Indeed, this is what we see in human nature, where women are generally less concerned with the physical attractiveness of a male IF the male is high status.

Men, on the other hand, tend to care only about physical attractiveness (and to some extent, personality, another ornamental feature of a well-developed mind and good genetics) and not so much about the status of a woman. This is probably because for most of our recent evolutionary history women have had comparably little opportunity nor any natural proclivity to acquire status through property and wealth, rather relying on their charms, both physical and otherwise, as their primary marketable characteristics in the sexual marketplace.

Another obvious biological problem with modern obesity and attractiveness is that our lower brains, at some level, must be coded with some template of what is and is not “human” in body shape. The extremes of modern obesity may prevent individuals from finding each other attractive because of this circuitry.

Feminists have their own sexist beef with this idea of an embedded ideal body form for attractiveness hard-coded into human DNA; in short, our women’s studies’ professors want to eat Twinkies and emasculate men, but resent the idea that men might find them less attractive for doing so.

The essence of feminism, of course, is that men are responsible for women’s happiness, whatever that might entail at a given moment. So we get demands for equal pay, but also demands for paid maternity leave. They want the freedom to behave immorally sexually, but also dislike the idea of pornography (i.e., imposing a standard of morality on men but not themselves).

The journalist Steve Sailer has coined his own “Law of Female Journalism,” which too is eerily predictive: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

So it is with feminists who dominate the “fat acceptance” movement who explicitly challenge the idea of men being naturally attracted to a certain body shape. Like other tabula rasa adherents, they blame “culture” for propagandizing men to prefer highly fertile 19-year-olds over hirsute, obese 40-something female sociology professors. Among their claims is that in ancient civilizations men preferred larger women.

Certain Roman ruins to call into question this assumption, but there may be a nugget of truth to it, to a certain well-defined limit. Some have identified a trend in the popular culture towards promoting thinner and thinner ideals of female beauty. Marilyn Monroe, for example, wore a size 8 dress for most of her career. In today’s Hollywood she would be considered a bit on the heavy side. Another study by Wired Magazine documented the decreasing Body Mass Index of Playboy centerfolds over the last 40+ years.

Hypotheses for this trend are widely varied, including A) men really do naturally prefer thinner women (thinness being a proxy for youth) and this trend reflects businesses serving their market, B) homosexual designers in the fashion industry prefer thinner women to better showcase their clothing, and this combined with the cultural phenomenon of the supermodel, served to distort ideals of beauty, which are somewhat socially influenced and flexible or C) the increasing obesity of the American population makes thinness even more relatively attractive as it becomes a highly desired, hard-to-attain and largely fake-resistant public indication of fitness.

Nevertheless, Homo sapiens finds himself in an interesting position in the early 21st century. His acquired habits make it extremely hard for him to resist plentiful, tasty food to excess while the demands of his sedentary lifestyle make it more likely he will permanently retain these fat reserves. These excess fat reserves, society-wide, not only result in increased mortality but also make him both less attractive to and less attracted to the opposite sex.

On top of this, the mass media constantly push impossible images of beauty, showcasing the idealized, airbrushed forms of the top 1% of the population. Every now and then the supermarket tabloids will feature candid beach or vacation photos of these airbrushed celebrities, and the difference between their projected, airbrushed media image and their appearance in real life is striking. Not even the “beautiful people” meet the standard of beauty in the age of Photoshop.

How might man escape this sexual dystopia? We will explore the escape of pornography in the next installment of this series.

Read Part 2 here.