Thread: How Long Until They Come For (Sexist) Darwin? By Steve Sailer

"Charles Darwin has been kept sacrosanct during the Great Awokening because his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is about plants and animals rather than about humans and thus is a stick in the eye to Christian creationists. But … a dozen years later in 1871, Darwin applied his “favoured races” logic to humans in The Descent of Man, and the Woke are gearing up to cancel that book on its 150th anniversary.From DW . . . "The authors of a book marking the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “Descent of Man” discuss “a most interesting problem” — namely how the naturalist’s fundamental misconceptions on sex and race still shape society.
A Most Interesting Problem — What Darwin’s Descent of Man got Right and Wrong about Human Evolution is published by Princeton University Press (2021).
… But let’s take a punt here and suggest that far fewer of us have heard of Darwin’s later work, The Descent of Man.
Published 150 years ago this February 24, the book explores, among other things, Darwin's theory of sexual selection — a process which he believed was a "complementary force to evolutionary change," as science historian Janet Browne states in A Most Interesting Problem.
. . . “Darwin proposed that sexual selection was instrumental in explaining the origin of what he called human ‘races’ and cultural progress,” writes Browne.
He argued that sexual selection explained why humans had broken off into different racial groups. Skin color and hair were important indicators. But according to Darwin, writes Browne, "sexual selection among humans would also affect mental traits such as intelligence and maternal love […] ."

And that even within the racial groups. Darwin wrote: “Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman, and has more inventive genius.”
Full article: https://vdare.com/posts/how-long-unt...ome-for-darwin

'Burn The Books!"

One of many steps towards communism.

Edit:

The latest appears to be schools banning Dr. Seusse.

Yeah, those green eggs with the ham are all about racism. Or is it anti-feminist to describe eggs by a colour that indicates cellular decay?

Hey, maybe by describing the eggs as green he was making a statement about infertility or abortion or something. Let's get woke people! Down with this sort of thing!

(Sarc.)

The movie "Fahrenheit 451"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YdbJBevuuQY

This doesn't surprise me. My little cousin was thrown out of class for saying trans women are biological men.

Originally Posted by ShogunRonin

This doesn't surprise me. My little cousin was thrown out of class for saying trans women are biological men.

In a weird twisted way it makes sense to get thrown out of school (for being educated way past anything they have to offer).

Originally Posted by ShogunRonin

This doesn't surprise me. My little cousin was thrown out of class for saying trans women are biological men.

Legally actionable on several fronts, all using rules the Socialists are attempting to impose on us.

How long before they come for Darwin ?

They should hurry, because Darwin is coming for them !

Originally Posted by rkspsm

How long before they come for Darwin ?

They should hurry, because Darwin is coming for them !

Naw man,

Darwin doesn't stand a chance with this lot.

Take the brave and the strong and send them into war to get shot up to fuck; take care of the weak and feeble - ooh those brave souls!

And some wonder how we end up living in idiocracies!

Figures like Darwin are incredibly useful to the worldwide mafia. It keeps their myriad trainsets running.

They have many trainsets but in particular:

their media and the people who work for them - almost every online platform and social media;
ad revenue from the above;
division and hatred (in particular white hate and man hate);
psychological programming of the population - keeping us dazed and confused;
anything anti-Logos

Stories like the above will spawn millions upon millions of pages of articles, arguments, posts, countless hours of talk... to what end? To keep the trainsets running. It doesn't really matter what is said so much as something is said, anything to keep the cattle chattering and 'subdued'.

It is quite simply bread and circuses while they progressively steal from and enslave us. A wave of the hand of a puppet master, followed by billions of pointless little actions from all the minions beneath him.

With Darwin I expect the woke consensus will be 'he was wrong about this' but mark my words, Darwin is very important to the cabal because he is the leading figure against Creation and thus, against God. Which they are, and they must prove themselves to be superior to God.

So they want you to believe we all came from nothing and evolved from amoeba into humans. So I guess the monkeys of today will eventually turn into humans.

Well if you believe that... I dunno what to tell ya! You may be sceptical about Creation but it is at least as credible as natural selection (a theory, nothing more).

Originally Posted by happybachelor

Well if you believe that... I dunno what to tell ya! You may be sceptical about Creation but it is at least as credible as natural selection (a theory, nothing more).

I am sceptical to both, and both have unique problems. While I find people (with religious tilt) often aware with the problems with natural selection, they are often unaware with this particular problem with Creation.

We can look at this from both the angle of "how life formed" and "how life evolved", in both cases the problem remains. Lets take "how life formed" angle. When asking this question, if you answer "God created it", you actually didnt answer it, you merely shifted the date of creation of life furthur back. Who created god then ? Their gods ? Who created their gods then ? What is the termination condition of this seemingly infinite recursion ?

Now "how life evolved" ? Saying god does it implying god is an advanced actor. Who then evolved them ? And so on..

Which is why at the end of the day, I side with Darwin's and related theories of life formation and selection. Yeah its a clumsy and absurd theory from statistical point of view, the probabilities of formation of life, etc are incredibly low. But its still the best theory which actually tries to answer the question and not dodge it by pushing the time and place furthur and furthur away.

And secondly, we see the effects of genetics in medical science all the time. There are many many diseases which runs in the families of affected people, carried over to their children and descendants (known as hereditary diseases), and some of them are quite problematic. And its not very hard to imagine that the family(ies) with less diseases are more likely to survive tougher situations, and hence natural selection at work.

It's good you are sceptical of both, I think scepticism is the right position at all times.

We cannot answer fundamental questions or prove most of our biggest assertions. And yet, we humans demand answers to what is likely unknowable.. As if we were Gods who rule this universe and not mere specks of dust. I find the arrogance of these people shameful. Who are we to question God, or who or whatever put us here?

But we must use our own reasoning at all times and not surrender it to the 'experts' because time and again we see the malicious motives behind these people and their backers.
Whenever something is deemed credible and actively pushed by the powers that be, it is time to be very sceptical. And when I say very sceptical, I mean 99.9% certain it's a lie.

Covid would be the most current example.

You must also realise that to be anti-creation and anti-God you are siding with the satanic forces ruling our world. That doesn't mean I'm calling you satanic, or even a bad person. It should just give you pause for thought. Whether you believe in them, God, Jesus represent all that is good. And these people are completely against all of that, and they have many theories to get the masses onside - Darwinism being one of them.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

We cannot answer fundamental questions or prove most of our biggest assertions. And yet, we humans demand answers to what is likely unknowable.. As if we were Gods who rule this universe and not mere specks of dust. I find the arrogance of these people shameful. Who are we to question God, or who or whatever put us here?

I dont think its about questioning god, its about understanding him... by asking questions. Why does the apple falls from the tree ? Why does thunderstorm is so bright and loud ? .. etc. And you are actually more right than what you said about assertions. We can NEVER prove anything. We can only falsify. Which means, we can never know the right, we can only know the wrong. I have said it other places in the forum, but worth repeating here, this is classical test for acceptance of scientific theory. Falsification and Occam's Razor.

In case of Darwin's theory vs Creation, none of them can be falsified. Which means we have to apply the second test, Occam's Razor, and select the simplest theory. Simplest can mean minimum number of changes. Darwin's theory is set of probabilities. Yes, the chances are very low, but repeat the experiment that number of times and you can likely get the result. But look at Creation theory, how many changes to the current known systems we have to do to make god ?

The Darwin's theory is winning the tests. These are the same tests which resulted in (correctly) rejection of classical newtonian physics at some extreme physical conditions. The point of these tests is, to select the best theory which explains maximum number of observations (falsification test) and is most efficient compared to competing theories (Occam's Razor). Theories selected this way can then be used in construction or calculation of other things (thus advancing science and tech).

Originally Posted by happybachelor

But we must use our own reasoning at all times and not surrender it to the 'experts' because time and again we see the malicious motives behind these people and their backers.
Whenever something is deemed credible and actively pushed by the powers that be, it is time to be very sceptical. And when I say very sceptical, I mean 99.9% certain it's a lie.

True, but I am not really surrendering to any experts. I am merely making observations and then calculations, and then presenting the argument for others to verify, or find any fault in it. If the conclusion attained in this form matches with the experts then so be it.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

Whether you believe in them, God, Jesus represent all that is good.

Again, I will believe the above calculations. And relying on theories which dont pass the above test, then starts to spread to other theories. God is an example here. Once you establish some concept of god, then it will start to come up in every theory you will put forward, making it very difficult to apply reasoning. So even for the things like what is really "good" ? I will try to look elsewhere for something more concrete.

In fact I happen to know one such theory ("good" defined scientifically, passing above tests), its just quite detailed to write here.

Interesting points.

By the way I am not a devout Christian, though I do believe in God and follow Jesus. But in a non-religious sense I align closely with Taoism, or something like it.

If we take the 'big bang' as the generally accepted start of the Earth or the universe.. So you're saying it's the most likely based on it having the most credible arguments, so being most probable.

But those credible arguments, what are they? When you really examine them, they are nearly always based on huge assumptions, which seem as if they were ready made to fit the hypothesis. And cannot be tested.

Nobody can even prove the Earth is a sphere. Yet a flat-Earther will be called insane.. why, because he refuses to align with the consensus? You say you aren't surrendering to any experts, but your observations and calculations are at base, agreements with theories of noted scientists, are they not? Everything is underpinned by an assumption. Have there been many challenges to Einstein's theory of gravity?

Darwin may be winning the test, but you must recognise this is in large part due to the universal credibility his theory holds. The consensus. Which makes it immediately suspect. I have found more truths, by which I mean verifiable truths, by going 180 degrees from the consensus.

A lot of scientists, and just ordinary people who think themselves scientifically minded, are completely misguided. In a way they are worse than the idiots, because they believe themselves to hold the truth based on shoddy science. I am not saying you are like this.

As for good, I'd be interested to learn about this scientific definition of it. It sounds very robotic, and very suspect! It's making me think of overly academic and complicated philosophy.. which is effectively useless.

We humans know what good is. It is inherent in our life force, our consciousness. Once we ignore that and start to find some objective proof or measure of it, we are on the road to hell for we have departed from God, or if you prefer, our innate, life-enabling consciousness. In doing so you have removed the innate powers of the human mind to discern, telling a man his intuition is necessarily rubbish until some white coat consensus has given you the acceptable truth. They cut out all the reasoning POWER of humankind and reduced us to dumb animals, farmed us in schools reading their false books of history and science to keep us dumb, lest we ever awaken to the innate power of our own minds. Once again, realising your power as a human is when you realise what you feel and know deep down, in your gut, your intuition etc... is usually right. It's what led us to TRP and MGTOW, for a start.

Here’s the thing about Darwinism and evolution.

We KNOW evolution to be true.

Not only do we have some sort of physical evidence from those that are educated in this field – not much to go on there then (self-aggrandising fekkers looking to make a name for themselves), but it just makes common sense: Those with an advantage will usually succeed over those without said advantage. Many of these changes today are seen as abnormalities and are forbidden to procreate, if not aborted at birth.

I make no moral comment, that’s just the way I see it. Mankind, whether right or not, is POTENTIALLY affecting natural evolution.

But.

Evolution, to me, does not begin to explain everything. I can accept that evolution happens, but I just can’t accept it as the basis for humanity. Maybe I have yet to be convinced.

Then again, as an atheist I cannot reconcile any kind of a creationist theory.

Maybe there’s another explanation yet to be voiced, I dunno.

And a word on Occam’s Razor:

As defined by merriam-webster:

: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...am%27s%20razor

In other words, the simplest explanation should be accepted unless there is something to contradict that assertion.

This is a dangerous rule to live by. Even with the most stringent of scientific method being applied, there are always the unknown variables – and there is no way to compensate because they are unknown and un-thought of!

If even the scientists can’t get it right in controlled labs, then what chance do you or I have applying it to everyday life?

How many have been wrongly convicted simply because there was no evidence to the contrary? (Duh – seems the most plausible explanation – GUILTY!)

Don’t make too many rules for yourself: Do no harm (unless warranted), other than that, do as you feel.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

If we take the 'big bang' as the generally accepted start of the Earth or the universe.. So you're saying it's the most likely based on it having the most credible arguments, so being most probable.

But those credible arguments, what are they? When you really examine them, they are nearly always based on huge assumptions, which seem as if they were ready made to fit the hypothesis. And cannot be tested.

Nobody can even prove the Earth is a sphere. Yet a flat-Earther will be called insane.. why, because he refuses to align with the consensus? You say you aren't surrendering to any experts, but your observations and calculations are at base, agreements with theories of noted scientists, are they not? Everything is underpinned by an assumption. Have there been many challenges to Einstein's theory of gravity?

Darwin may be winning the test, but you must recognise this is in large part due to the universal credibility his theory holds. The consensus. Which makes it immediately suspect. I have found more truths, by which I mean verifiable truths, by going 180 degrees from the consensus.

You are right ! Its the most credible theory YET. I already said, that the basis of scientific method is that we can never know what is really true. Which means we can never know exactly what is happening with ANYTHING. We can only refine our theories as time goes by.

You quoted Einstein's theory. It is known and accepted in scientific circles that Einstein cant be right. There is a better theory out there waiting to be discovered. Why ? Because its already falsified : Quantum Theory. Einstein's relativistic theories fail at subatomic level, and likewise quantum theories fail at relativistic conditions. And both these theories are not compatible. Which means we are missing some general theory. So until and unless we find it, we have to make to do with these theories.

But see, even if we KNOW they are wrong, they are immensely helpful. Relativistic physics used commonly in tracking airplanes etc. Thats the whole point of those two tests. To select the most plausible and most efficient, and use it to build stuff until someone comes up with something better.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

As for good, I'd be interested to learn about this scientific definition of it. It sounds very robotic, and very suspect! It's making me think of overly academic and complicated philosophy.. which is effectively useless.

There is zero philosophy and opinion there, it is all from first principles. Any complex field is academic to the person who is not in there, that doesnt mean its useless for everyone. Designing and building a microchip processor, its SUPER complex. Even a broad overview is mind blowingly complicated. But its not useless from any angle.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

We humans know what good is. It is inherent in our life force, our consciousness.... It's what led us to TRP and MGTOW, for a start.

My story is very different. I did not reach here by intuition. My intuition was in fact pulling me towards a lot of woke bs, but I had few questions which nobody could answer (falsification). This eventually lead me to search more (for better theories you can say). And THAT led me to mgtow, and even furthur actually. Most of the leftist bs like covid, feminism, woke culture etc, is EASILY falsified, which is actually the reason why I am not affected by them.

Look I am not saying intuition is bad or anything. Its very good, and it has genuine advantages over a mechanical procedure. And if its the intuition that makes your life better for you, whatever you call "better", then its good. Not saying you have to change.

But, whatever I wrote has become my intuition now. Just like driving a car. Remember first time driving a car, how absurdly complex it feels, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes second nature. These things have learning curve just like other things. If you want I can PM you the "robotic" definition of good, I am not pasting here because people will read it and assume they understand all of it one go because they have experience with life. No, it doesnt work that way. Even the smartest people take a lot of time to internalize it. It took me few months in my case to be able to develop the intuition enough to apply it.

Do tell me if you feel like giving it a go, only then I will PM. If you are able to find any fault with any parts of it, the people who developed it are available PUBLICLY for debate. All that research was done in full public view. Nothing is classified. But of course, I'll suggest to first run it by me (on PM). Based on the debates I have seen so far, I should be able to help with many common beginner pitfalls.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

In other words, the simplest explanation should be accepted unless there is something to contradict that assertion.

This is a dangerous rule to live by. Even with the most stringent of scientific method being applied, there are always the unknown variables – and there is no way to compensate because they are unknown and un-thought of!

Yes its the falsification test. I clearly mentioned it several times. Occam's Razor is a tie breaker.

I agree its dangerous, but all science and tech after the first decade of 20th century utilized this. So its found to work and the best so far...

Intuition is not instinct.. very different things.

Einstein's relativity has been 'disproven'. What I meant was his theory of gravity isn't questioned.

But it should not escape you that many experiments that 'disprove' other theories, are themselves resting on unquantifiable variables.

Most scientists would say we can prove, or disprove a black hole. Really? I think not. It's all theoretical because we don't know shit!

We could take apart a frog and split it into its organs, its cells, its atoms. Wow aren't we clever, look how much we know about the frog. Actually the more we reduce something the less we understand it. I accept this flies against scientific dogma but it is a very different perspective on things.

It is the 'black hole' science and society has long disappeared down into. We do not need to boil everything into its constituent parts. The answers are clear. Breaking everything down, why? To manipulate it. We are playing God.

Can't you see the evil that arises from this? We invent theories and rest everything on them because we cannot, will not accept that some things are beyond our capacity to understand. That there could be a God who simply wants us to live in harmony with the world. Like the animals and plants. Can't you see that scientism and 'atheism' involves just as much faith as believing in God?

What we need is less 'scientific thinking' and more wisdom to see what is obvious.. only then might mankind return to something better.

Yes please PM me about this, I'm interested.

@happybachelor: Check your PM.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

That there could be a God who simply wants us to live in harmony with the world. Like the animals and plants.

Well, here we disagree then. I certainly dont want to live like plants and animals. That will be living only to hunt/eat, sleep, poop and procreate, over and over again, day in and day out.

If god doesnt want that, then he will have his judgement on me. Currently I dont think gods are even remotely angry with me.

You take things a little too literally here. It is not a contradiction to fully use the power of our human minds and to live in harmony with our own nature, and nature itself, at the same time. But it does require a fundamental shift of perception. You seem reasonable and decent, thanks for the debate and for the PM.

Intuition is not instinct.. very different things.

Intuition is our ability to peer through time, instinct is our life force and spirit, it lives in the present, knows only natural law, and guides through this world of endless calamity like a soldier on a battlefield doing whatever it takes to survive the endless barrage, it has no future or ability to comprehend.

This is not to say intuition doesn't warn instinct to brace, attack, or run. Instinct can follow orders from intuition but not the other way around, and intuition can't order instinct when where or what time to kick in, that happens in a millisecond under a natural law that can't be bargained with, broken, or molested, it's up there with the laws of gravity.


For every facet of logic and understanding, there's an equal and opposing facet of logic and understanding. A riddle, a paradox, a blessing and a curse occupying the same time and space but only one is the truth, the other, false. Look at the truths we hold incontrovertible, and the fact is, we built this mountain of truth from a mountain of lies!

One of the main things we do is point out all the lies and deception held dearly by fools! We're the wrecking ball the wall never saw coming! There is no wall for men that follow our instincts while honing and shaping our intuition. Like a child learning not to touch hot stoves.

Einstein and men in general hold the keys to genius and unlock the mysteries of our universe. We're created in god's image, and just like him, we created a few things ourselves! Creativity is our nature and passion!

We live in the best of times mankind has ever lived, we fly through the air at the greatest of ease at speeds unimaginable! We own magic carpets that take us anywhere anytime we like!

How could one ever have imagined the world we have today and so few people that appreciate it and don't take it for granted?

MGTOW offers men a freedom that defies belief!

Originally Posted by mgtower

We live in the best of times mankind has ever lived, we fly through the air at the greatest of ease at speeds unimaginable! We own magic carpets that take us anywhere anytime we like!

This is so true. In many countries, including mine, a middle class person like me, has more comforts than the richest and powerful of even a century ago.

And this keeps freaking me out to no end. Because for most of us, not only we are too used to these comforts and dont know a thing how to survive outside these, but these comforts and systems and "apparatus" has way too many weak points. It feels like a fkn sand castle and the wind is about to blow hard.