All Episodes
Aug. 2, 2020 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
01:06:58
Is Immigration Reform Pointless?

Ron Unz has, once again, proved to be the straw that stirs the dissident drink. He’s published an article on the failures of White Nationalism—which has sparked reaction and outrage. His counter-intuitive thesis: by focusing on immigration, the Alt-Right missed the boat and now has nothing insightful to say about the most traumatic social change of our time. Does he have a point? The panel says “yes.” After swallowing that bitter medicine, we tred into even darker intellectual territory, regarding free speech, feminism as a return to nature, and how Western civilization was ruined by its own success. No sacred cow will be saved from the slaughter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Sunday, August 2nd, 2020, and welcome back to The McSpencer Group, the internet's nightmare podcast, which is actually its secret fantasy.
Joining me on the panel are Edward Dutton and Josh Neal.
Top issue, is immigration reform pointless?
Ron Unz has once again proved to be the straw that stirs the dissident drink.
He's published an article on the failures of white nationalism, which has sparked reaction and outrage.
His counterintuitive thesis?
By focusing on immigration, the alt-right missed the boat, and now has nothing insightful to say about the most traumatic social change of our country.
Does he have a point?
The panel says yes.
After swallowing that bitter medicine, we tread into even darker intellectual territory regarding free speech, feminism as a return to nature, And how Western civilization was ruined by its own success.
No sacred cow will be saved from the slaughter.
The latest article on the Un's Review titled The Political Bankruptcy of American White Nationalism.
And if any of you are familiar with this article, have taken a look at the comments section.
He's taken some heat for the comments made in this article.
And if you clicked on this video, hopefully to find the three of us beating up on poor little Ron, I think you're going to be dismayed, as there's some very useful insights in here.
And as Richard was saying before we started recording, in his own way, Ron kind of gropes at a very true sentiment.
So with that being said...
Among other things.
No, just kidding, Ron.
With that being said, I'll just turn it over to you, Richard.
Sure, yeah.
I think Ron Unz has often been the straw that stirs the drink.
if you want to make an interesting cocktail in the sense of a discussion online, kind of an inside baseball discussion, one within the alt-right writ large.
But nevertheless, he's done that.
I've known about Ron for some time.
He actually wrote an article, I guess it's about 10 years ago now.
Feels like only yesterday, but called Hispanic.
Many of the themes that are present in this latest piece are there, too.
He was making, I think, making a decent point that he exaggerated into kind of a bad point, which was that Hispanics actually lower crime when they immigrate into cities.
I think he could have made a just...
He could have made another point, which is that Hispanics are not African Americans, and so we need to kind of differentiate what we're talking about when we're talking about, say, urban problems or urban decay and so on, and these kind of new types of cities in El Paso.
But that being said, my brain just operates differently than Ron's.
We have different thought patterns.
And so I sometimes will read him and be like, why are you articulating it this way?
Why are you coming at it from this perspective?
But at the end of the day, that's okay.
I actually think he's correct about quite a few things.
And I don't know.
Let me start.
Let's start the discussion with a little bit of history, because that might be a good place to start.
And then we can start, you know, kind of coming up to the present day in terms of how we.
I mean, his fundamental argument is that immigration reform is a kind of proxy for racialism.
That's something that I've been saying for the last decade.
And I think that's clearly true, and that's actually always been historically true.
And that there are some major problems with that, and including, most pressingly, At the moment, the problem that you're kind of missing the most destructive social change that's occurring right now,
which effectively has nothing to do with immigration or immigrants and is effectively white liberals and African Americans and the, as it was articulated by one of his interlocutors, that sadomasochistic relationship between white liberals.
And African Americans, let's play master and servant.
Yes, that is how I would define it.
It's really well done.
But let's focus on the history of immigration reform and racialism.
America never had an immigration policy until the 20th century.
And in fact, they only had it in the end of the first quarter of the 20th century.
So that's fairly remarkable in itself.
A lot of people talk about a 1790 naturalization act as if that were an immigration act but it was not an immigration act it was a naturalization act it basically said if you're free and white come on in so it wasn't really an immigration restriction and in the sense of it being kind of racialized I guess that is interesting in the sense that America was more of a racialized country vis-a-vis
I don't think it's...
Particularly surprising, given the context.
But it is certainly different.
It was less of a sense of a people that was rooted.
It was more of a sense of this frontier.
You could say kind of like an open platform for whites to conquer.
And so that was effectively the...
The non-immigration immigration policy the United States had for more than a century.
There were moves to change these things, and obviously the immigration started to have more of an effect as America urbanized and the frontier closed.
And so there were this great wave in the middle and fourth quarter of the 19th century of Southern Europe.
There's still a lot of Central Europeans coming in, but this was the age of the Italian immigrant, the Irish immigrant, and not Southern Europe.
In that case, the Irish immigrant, the Italian immigrant, the Jewish immigrant.
And it was changing the quality of...
The American nation was not just white, but it was Nordic.
And it was actually more Nordic than...
And he wanted to maintain that.
And so if we fast forward to the 1924 act, Madison Grant acted as a kind of immanence grise in pushing this.
He was an amazing figure.
He was a lawyer by training, but never really practiced, and was interested in conservation.
He was a kind of wasp brahmin from New York City.
He was part of the founding of the Bronx Zoo.
He was involved with Glacier National Park, which is just about an hour away from me.
He was involved with Save the Redwoods Foundation.
I mean, he did all sorts of things.
He could even take personal credit for saving multiple species.
I mean, he is an amazing man.
New Teddy Roosevelt, new other luminaries, incredible figure.
And what he did in 1924 was also pretty remarkable.
He gained credibility among mainstream commentators and even former presidents in basically saying, we don't want the United States to be a dumping ground.
And they would even use words like this.
We're a country here, guys.
You can't just come here and take what you want.
You can't come here and bring social problems.
They're pretty reasonable.
Sentiments that you'd find in almost any country on Earth, in fact.
But the 1924 Act should be defended Or should be at least understood as an act of racialism and indeed an act of Nordicism.
And you sometimes have to defend.
I feel like I have to explain the 1924 Act to some of its so-called defenders who are civic nationalists who would say that, oh no, it was a progressive act.
It wasn't about that.
Oh really?
Was it actually?
In fact, the act was not conservative.
It was almost like a revolution.
He made preferences in terms of national quotas that went before the great wave of immigration.
So he was attempting to restore the Nordic quality of America through the 1924 Act.
It was not maintaining things as they are.
It was actually reverting to pre-great wave immigration.
And this is a man who was the foremost scholar of Nordicism in the world at the time.
And actually, his book before the Conquest of the Continent was actually read in almost a textbook in some places.
It was wildly popular.
Conquest of the Continent was less so.
Yes, exactly.
So this is what that act was about.
Now, that act was kind of undermined throughout the Cold War period.
The eugenicist movement, which Madison Grant was a part of, was also undermined during the 1930s because it had a bit of a whiff of social Darwinism about it.
Although that was not Madison Grant's background or intention, but it had a kind of whiff of, you know, if you're not...
Rich, you should die.
You know, kind of brutal social Darwinism about it, although Madison Grant, again, was not like that.
And it started to be undermined throughout the 1930s and the Great Depression.
Then, subsequently after the Second World War, it was really undermined when all forms of racialism, Nordicism, eugenics were connected to National Socialist Germany.
And eventually the Holocaust a few decades later, but it started to have a kind of bad vibe about it.
And he was kind of intellectually or morally undermined.
But the act was maintained until 1965.
And at that point, they moved from a concept of national origins to a concept of family reunification.
And also, that act was also a kind of, you could say, anti-racialist act.
It wasn't just, oh, we're going to have this immigration policy.
It was an attempt to bring the 1964 Anti-Discrimination Civil Rights Act up to speed with immigration.
That being said, one of the...
Ironies, perhaps, of the 1965 Act was that due to the fact that its paradigm was family reunification, it was pro-white really up until this...
You could say the mid-70s or 80s, in the sense that most of the people coming here were already white for economic reasons, for historical reasons, and then also due to the legacy of the 24 Act.
So when they were reunifying their families, it's not like we had a million Chinese just come into the country in 1966 or something.
It was generally a pro-European act.
Up until, say, the kind of 80s or 90s when things started to change dramatically.
So basically what I'm saying is that the history of immigration in the United States is interesting, and it's always been racialist.
So to kind of pretend that the 1924 Act was a progressive act or whatever, okay, there's more than a one kernel of truth in there, but it's missing the fundamental...
And I would say, you know, to fast forward again to where we are today, Ronan's is correct in the sense that the immigration restrictionist movement, the patriotic immigration reform, is a proxy for white nationalism, you could say.
We're using broad terms here for racialism.
He estimates that 90% of the people who are hardcore immigration restrictionists are effectively white nationalists.
I don't think that's wrong.
Maybe it's wrong around the edges, but it's not fundamentally wrong.
There are people who are not like that.
He mentions Roy Beck, who's obsessed with numbers and the working class and all that kind of stuff.
Fair enough.
But yeah, if we're talking about...
Most of the people who are really interested in this issue, you scratch them just a little bit and you're going to find a white nationalist.
That's just an empirical fact.
And it's not even a problem because, again, American immigration has always been racialist.
And you just can't get away from that fact.
And if you start pretending that you're a civic nationalist, you're just not really being honest.
With your motivations.
And maybe you think that's really smart and pragmatic, but I don't think it actually is.
And so what Unz is saying, and where I think he's getting at something, I don't quite agree, but it's that, you know, this has been the proxy for...
white nationalist for some time has been the immigration issue and that is a problem when you're not really addressing pressing concerns to people Well, I was just going to say that the point that I think that he makes quite well, and it is very, very important at the moment, is who is causing all of the damage to our...
To the culture of Western peoples such that the culture of Western peoples wants to push them in a direction where people want to say that, you know, they should not have children for the sake of the planet or that they should allow their sons and daughters to be mutilated at a very young age or want to put on puberty blockers.
Who is pushing everything in this direction?
It's not black people that's doing that.
It's not Mexicans.
It's not Mexicans that's doing that.
It's not even Jewish people doing that.
It's white people that's doing that.
And it's a subgroup within white people, which is these, I mean, if you look at the very interesting paper that was recently published in Mankind Quarterly by Emil Kierkegaard, and he looks at all of the different data on this mental illness and the left.
And he looks on so many different data points, on so many measures of mental illness and of happiness.
People who are on the far left are extremely mentally ill and likely to suffer from all kinds of mental problems on so many measures of it, whether you identify them as self-identified liberals, self-identified extreme liberals, self-identified democrats, self-identified fervent democrats, whatever it is, or simply if you measure it the other way around in terms of how happy people are.
what you have is a situation where white people who formerly...
Who were mad, basically.
A man.
Would have...
Well, we're a bit mad too.
Well, great wits next to madness.
Great wits next to madness.
But perhaps you can talk about man in a positive sense, people that are artistic or highly original or whatever are often about.
But we're talking about being deeply mentally unstable in a negative way, which permeates the rest of society.
And there's more and more of these people, it seems.
They're growing as a percentage of the population for genetic reasons and whatever, with lack of evolutionary pressures, which should be obvious to a lot of our viewers by now.
But also they're able to club together and subvert the entire culture and use race as this means of taking the entire culture in a direction that is maladaptive by appealing to people's sense of fairness and people's sense of equality and people's sense of love and whatever.
And so this is what we get.
So they are the enemy.
And they are the thing that needs to be confronted.
Before there can be immigration reform, before this can be rolled back, before Western countries can be more like Eastern Europe and sort out their own borders, then those people need to be removed from positions of power.
And those people are not in positions of power in Eastern Europe.
They're not there.
And there's not enough of them.
To reach a tipping point where they can take over and they're not able to subvert the culture.
It was very interesting.
There was an interview with Viktor Orban, the Hungarian leader, the other day, and he was asked about the idea of Hungary wanting to become more Western or something like that, more European, and he laughed.
And so, well, until recently, I might have wanted that because the West is richer than the East.
But now, not now, no, because an element of the West is just this madness, this multiculturalism and this madness.
So, no, I don't want Hungary to become more like that.
And so we've had this flip where, in a lot of ways, OK, it's not 100% true to say this, but in a lot of ways, they are freer in Eastern Europe, in the ex-communist countries, in a lot of the ex-communist countries, than we are in the West.
And that is the fault of a subgroup among white people.
That is not the fault of Muslims.
And that's what a lot of these civic nationalists, they concentrate on the bogeyman being immigrants.
Immigrants are a product of something deeper.
And that something deeper is an intraracial, intra-ethnic competition that is occurring within Muslims.
And so, yes, I think he's right in that sense.
That is where the background should be drawn.
That's what we're seeing, that it is whites who are deeply disturbed who are the problem.
Yeah, let me mention this.
I mean, I gave a speech in 2013 at the American Renaissance Conference where I talked about...
The issue of immigration as a problematic issue to basically put all of our eggs in this basket.
My point was that in 2011, the majority of births in the United States were to non-white mothers.
Now, some people have kind of criticized that around the edges, but I think it is definitely true now.
So basically, even if we won, the demographic change of the United States is just simply baked into the cake.
Even if Donald Trump, I mean, let's engage in retroactive fantasy here.
If Donald Trump just came in, he didn't do his bad health care policy, he didn't appoint Jared to high office, but he didn't do criminal justice reform.
Instead, he was like, immigration moratorium now, boom.
That wouldn't fundamentally change our destiny.
It might put it off by...
Say, 20 years.
But again, if we're going to do this movement that's going to be attacked and it's going to be viewed as marginal, viewed as evil in some cases, we're going to do it.
We don't want to just get little minor meaningless victories.
We want to change the culture and change meta-politics for the long term.
So just saying we won't if your goal is we're not we don't want to be a minority in our own land, which is a reasonable goal, saying we don't want to be a minority in our own land for another 15 years is not particularly inspiring or impressive.
So even if immigration were halted tomorrow morning, the demographic change would occur.
And I would say this even, you know, in the more pressing, you know, present if we immigration is halted.
I actually got an email from Vidar saying, we won.
Apparently.
They've won.
Amazing.
They're just spiking the football.
Boom.
Because immigration has halted due to coronavirus.
Well, what have you achieved outside of locking yourself in a cage with these spiteful mutants and their insane ideology?
Did society change once that happened?
No, nothing changed.
Things are getting far more intense.
Far worse.
Yeah, change for the worse, if anything, in the sense that we're now, you know, what was the line from Watchmen?
Like, I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me.
Like, that's basically where we are with these people.
And if you, like, reduce the population by stopping immigration, you're just, like, intensifying the poison.
To the point about the crypto nature of immigration restrictionists and their motivations.
Yeah.
You know, there's something to be said about, you kind of cutely hinted that maybe these people think it's strategic.
Fundamentally, it's dishonest.
And you have to wonder if part of the failure of that movement has been the inherent and intentional dishonesty of the people who are advocating these issues and why they're advocating them.
Because on one hand, obviously, the thinking might go something like this.
Well, they'll assume we're genocidal, maniacal Nazis, so we'll cloak ourselves in this kind of veneer of civic nationalism, whatever the case is.
But from the other perspective, somebody might be inclined to say, well, if you're lying to me about this, what else are you lying to me about?
You know, it's just this cascading effect where if you can't fully represent yourself, your aims, your intentions, your motivations, who you are, what you want to accomplish, then you're already making your job that much more difficult.
Yes.
I can go off on this unless Ed wants to jump in.
Yeah, I mean...
Go ahead.
With regard to the fatalism about half of non-white births, and it doesn't matter what happens, I'm not quite sure we can be that fatalistic, because we have to take into account who is breeding among white people.
So first of all, you're going to get, there's evidence that fertility, i.e.
the desire to have children, have lots of children, is itself heritable.
And so what's going to be happening is that over time, the people that have high heritable fertility are going to be breeding out the people that don't have high heritable fertility.
Now, what are we going to expect our high heritable fertility to be correlated with?
Well, it's obvious what it's going to be correlated with.
It's going to be correlated with all other adaptive traits that would have been selected for under conditions of purifying Darwinian selection.
And so it's going to be correlated, and it is correlated, with religiousness and being religious, in the traditional sense of the word I mean, is correlated with being right-wing, and the heritability of religiousness is 0.4, 0.5, the heritability of political orientation is 0.4, 0.5.
And so therefore what you would expect is that although there is this increasing, there is this decreasing white birth rate, to the extent that there is a white birth rate, it's not a random white birth rate, it's not just like taking white people as they existed in 1980 and they just...
Randomly had children.
It hasn't worked like that.
At the level of genetics, they're going to be becoming more fertile, more religious, more right-wing.
But this movement, this genetic component is being suppressed by the fact that you've got all these other people that are born, that have small families.
That are not like that, that are the minor spiteful mutants, as it were, and who themselves have relatively low fertility.
But there's enough of them, and they push the society in this particular direction, and they take advantage of those that are not.
Because a lot of these people that are going to be religious or right-wing or whatever are going to be kind of immune.
They're going to be highly genetically controlled, in a sense, and they're going to be immune to an environment that's trying to tell them to do weird, unusual, maladaptive things.
So apart from those people, but those people are going to be growing as a proportion of the population.
And what you'd eventually expect would be some sort of tipping point would be reached.
So therefore the nature of the people that would be left...
I totally agree.
I'm not a fatalist.
Believe me.
You would get a movement the other way.
So it's not necessarily endgame.
I'm not a fatalist.
What I am not is a democrat.
Demography is not destiny.
This is something I hear from these people over and over again.
On the one hand, they claim that the elite, or maybe more succinctly, Jews, are controlling And isn't it amazing that this minority population has so much influence on culture, media, politics, etc.?
And I don't fundamentally disagree with that view, although I come at it from a different perspective.
I think Jews obviously have tremendous influence on politics, culture, media, foreign policy, etc.
We need to maintain our majority, you know?
Actually, throughout world history, majorities do not determine anything.
They don't determine culture.
They don't determine politics, obviously.
And they don't determine foreign policy even more, obviously.
Majority, you know, there's cattle and they're cowboys.
It's good to be a cowboy and not the cattle.
And these people want to breed more cows.
We need more cows.
We need to have white cows as the majority of the cows.
Well, no.
We need the cowboys who channel the cows.
I am not a fatalist in the slightest bit.
What I am not is a Democrat or someone who believes in egalitarianism.
Demography is not destiny.
Period.
It has never been destiny.
In fact, the history of the world is about elites controlling inferiors.
And that is the history of nature.
So to focus on this egalitarian bullshit about voting, we need 51% in the United States.
These people need to just shut up and just understand the way history operates.
Sorry, rant.
I'll calm down.
Yes, this is a pressing time.
We need to live off ranting occasionally.
It's a good spirit of rant.
It's a good spirit of rant, but she had used the spare bedroom as a loo again.
Her behaviour aside, yeah, it's quite right.
And the question is, is when the elite become demoralised?
When the elite that is the adaptive elite, as it were, that is the elite that is putting the society in a direction of, towards a sense of the transcendent, towards eternity, towards something greater, when that elite is demoralised?
And that's part of what happened in, I mean, I give a comparison to England, I'm from there, but it kind of happened in America around the same time, in the early 60s.
That's when it starts.
And the rot sets in and the old ways fall apart.
As the poet Philip Larkin said, something in gestures pushed to one side like an outdated combine harvester.
And this is kind of what goes on.
A new elite, you have inter-elite competition, which Peter Turkin looked into so well, and a new elite is able to topple them and take power.
And certainly once their ideas reach a tipping point of about 25% of the population accepting them, then they really can take power because they look like the new young bucks.
And that's what was kind of happening in the 80s and 90s.
And it's born fruit today such that you just have this cult, this religious cult in power, and we are much less free than we were 30 or 40 years ago.
But they're not there forever.
And one of the things that I wonder about with regard to their actions, their council culture, the desperation.
We had another academic council in Britain only a couple of days ago, English lecturer.
It doesn't come from a position of perceived future strength.
It's like a rearguard action.
It's almost like McCarthyism.
I think McCarthyism came from a position of knowing that it's falling apart.
These guys are taking over and this is my last ditch attempt.
I don't know if it's true.
I saw some posters that said that artists walk among you.
Artists are dangerous.
I don't know if that's true.
If that's an exaggeration, like a satire of McCarthyism.
But artists are in all classes and they walk among us and be careful of artists.
But I think that's kind of perhaps where we, based on what I know of the breeding patterns and whatever, that's where we would be.
I think that there's so many people now that are just sort of mocking this, that are seeing it as the lunacy, the total lunacy that it is.
It's moving out into public discourse.
It's not just people discussing it now in the comfort of their own home, or even at work.
It's moving out into...
Yeah, but unless we can cancel people...
I know this is going to be like a parody of Richard Spencerism, but I agree with you that McCarthyism was a rearguard action, and it was almost like a dying lashing out, because the State Department was controlled by these eastern seaboard liberals with...
I mean, on...
They are still the dominant force.
And conservatives can whine about this stuff, but they can't really confront it or certainly counteract it.
And the other aspect about conservatives is they kind of fundamentally agree with it at some level.
Every time they couch an argument of, well, we want to get rid of the real racist, we all agree with that, but why are you going after Breitbart or whatever?
They're going after Breitbart because Breitbart was a...
It was the platform for the alt-right, in the words of Steve Bannon.
And that was a direct quote from Steve Bannon to Sarah Posner that was accurate.
He wanted to get in touch with that spirit that the alt-right represented in 2016.
And in 2017, it started to move away.
Breitbart started to move away from it.
They wanted to get in touch with that.
They wanted to be the proxy battle for racialist energies.
But until you're able to take the mask off and say, this is who I am, this is actually what I fundamentally believe, then we're going to be losing to cancelers.
And I get it that people...
It's gotten so insane that even average conservatives or normies don't like cancel culture.
But until you are the ones doing the canceling, you're just whining about it.
And you don't get...
That far just whining about stuff.
I'm not sure as this moves due to demographics, but that time will come.
I mean, at the moment in Poland, it's unfortunate though in a way, because whether you're cancelling people that are on the right or cancelling people that are on the left, you're still restricting freedom.
I'm restricting creativity and putting up taboos and saying there's certain things that can't be said.
It's just different things.
We should do that.
Shouldn't some things not be said?
Yeah, you want proper parameters.
Yeah.
Well, perhaps.
If there's a good book, then there's a bad book.
That's their argument.
That's their argument that something shouldn't be said.
Well, no, what they say shouldn't be said is things that are the truth.
I get it that they're aiming at the wrong target, but I don't know.
Do you actually believe in just pure freedom?
We should just publish an article on why child porn is healthy and how gay marriage is the only true form of marriage.
Do you really want that kind of stuff published?
Or 10 reasons why you shouldn't have children.
Or even something more benign.
Cut your balls off to achieve personal satisfaction.
No.
Culture does affect you.
You're born brewing in something and marinating in it, and it does affect your life.
Well, this goes to something I wanted to ask you, Ed, before, because I've heard you say this a few times, and while I'm inclined to agree with you, I also come from kind of an evolutionary psychology background, but I really do wonder if we're overstating the kind of genetic aspect of this, because exactly what Richard and I are talking about is the mimetic influence, the way that you can create You can mold people into who you want them to be.
So I wonder how much maybe you're overstating certain heritable factors versus...
I mean, it's not...
You tell me.
Was there a massive surplus of spiteful mutants, say, 1960s roundabout?
Or were all of the influential institutions able to spread these ideas and convince people effectively to...
Be full-on spiteful mutants and kind of evoking a genotype or just muting natural characteristics.
But I'll go ahead.
What the spiteful mutant is, yeah, we're talking about, it's not like a person is liberal and thus they're a spiteful mutant.
There are people who are more or less, for partly genetic reasons and partly environmental reasons, susceptible to Should we say individualizing values rather than binding values and who are susceptible to things which would push them in a sort of maladaptive direction, open to these things, whereas other people simply wouldn't be.
And the spiteful mutants would be people in positions of authority and power and whatever that would push, that would help to push society in this negative.
In this maladaptive direction.
What you say about the 60s is actually very interesting.
No, I don't think there was a spike in them at that time.
I think this is a gradual process that has been going on for genetic and then more recently, of course, for environmental reasons as we are.
In an environment which is increasingly at odds with, it's an increasingly evolutionary mismatch, and this is going to make people behave in unusual and often maladaptive ways.
But I think you would have had an increase in the percentage of the population that would have these pathologies.
Since 1800, basically, since the child mortality rate started to go down from 50%.
And this would increase and increase and increase until the sort of tipping point was reached where there was a lot of them.
And then they really would start to be able to subvert the culture and whatever.
The 60s is interesting because there's actually interesting data on that.
So one of the markers, one of the things that could be seen as something that's a mental problem of the mind, which is increasing, secular increase across time, is autism.
So we're not adapted to be autistic.
We may be adapted to have a very small proportion of the population that these autistics are such that they're geniuses or whatever.
But as a rule, we are a highly social, we use social species.
And so obviously, it's not good to be autistic.
So therefore, you would expect that to be associated with other maladaptive things, such as a poor immune system or whatever.
And you would expect people with that to be wiped out due to childhood diseases.
And that seemingly was what happened.
Now, as a consequence of these various breakthroughs, this hasn't.
And there's been a secular increase in autism across time.
One of the markers of autism is parental age, paternal age.
The older a father is, the more likely a father is, the more likely he is to have de novo mutations.
And one of those de novo mutations is autism.
And there was a very interesting study which found that up until the 60s, there was no association.
Autists, I should say, tend to be atheists.
They tend not to believe in God.
There are various reasons for this we can go into if you want, but they tend not to be even gone.
Now, up until the 1960s, based on American data, there was no correlation between paternal age and religiosity.
There was no effect.
Now, there is.
The older is your father, the more likely you are to be an atheist.
Now, what that is consistent with...
Is that America was a religious society in the 60s and you had to conform to it and the pressure to conform through sort of effortful control to convince yourself of the reality of God was so strong that even these autistics or whatever that were growing in the population did so.
More recently, as religion has fallen apart and is no longer controlling the American population, there is no social pressure to conform to this, and therefore the relationship between autism and paternal age, sorry, between atheism and paternal age, comes about.
So it's as though these things were building up, but religiousness was still dominant because of the way it controlled the environment, and it was holding back like a tsunami of...
Shall we say spiteful mutants?
And so it's an environment-religion interaction.
So I don't want to overemphasize the genetic element.
There is a genetic element of it, yes.
But a big part of it is the environment and how the environment is optimized to promote adaptive behavior.
And once that's subverted, you get a sort of tipping point after which it will...
You will get the kind of subversion that we see now.
Isn't this then kind of an argument for what Richard and I are saying, like you would want a platonic style program of censorship?
Because the alternative would be some massively, you know, maybe extinction level event eugenics program where you are just kind of rolling back the biological clock to undo all of these spiteful mutations that happened over time.
So it seems to me choice A is something really, really kind of...
We'll wipe out lots of people, whatever the case might be.
Or you have some very strongly enforced kind of code of conduct, ethics, enforcement, effectively, we would want to be the cancelers.
Yes.
Well, yes, I can see your argument, but all I know about it is that the contrarian in me is what's attracted to the areas that I'm attracted to now.
And I can't help but thinking that if you had right-wing tyranny, I just wouldn't be able to help myself.
All right, let me take this discussion to an even darker realm.
So, okay.
We've kind of gone...
We're a little bit far away from the uns thing, but that's fine.
I think this is interesting.
So, Ed's argument is that Western civilization was, in a way, ruined by its own success.
And what I mean by that is this, that through the development of the Industrial Revolution and the exploitation of fossil fuels, I think that might have even been more important than the Industrial, although it's dependent upon it.
But across the 19th century to the early 20th century, there was this environmental revolution in the sense.
And that was based on the development of science since Bacon and Newton, etc., We began to be exploiting the dinosaurs with fossil fuels, which led to the development of cars, plastics, I mean, stuff.
Your household is full of fossil fuels in a way.
You can't almost imagine life without this amazing industrial revolution across a century and a half or so.
And that led to medical advances, which led to the just dramatic collapse of childhood mortality.
And so those people who would have been culled from the population are now surviving at a tremendous rate.
And another aspect of this was monogamy.
And so I'm trying to get at this triumph leads to...
Destruction, ruined by your own success.
So, you know, monogamy is not necessarily natural.
In most natural environments, the alphas will dominate, and they will get most of the women, not so much the betas, or betas, betas, who's the guy?
Our black friend, Justin Peterson.
Beta!
Not necessarily the betas, but the kind of omegas and kind of the people on down will not reproduce.
They will not get the girl.
You know, all those bees that come together on a plane in Africa that was recently in a David Attenborough video and were battling each other for the females.
And they actually, all the males kill each other at the end of this mating ritual.
The badasses get the girls.
Monogamy, not so much.
Go ahead, Ed.
That's true.
There's two things we have to take into account.
So one is that what the people that are low in monogamy are evolved towards is a highly this K, this ecology where there's a lot of intergroup competition and that militates in favour of bonding.
that militates in favour of reducing the amount of sex, reducing the amount of partners and elevating investment in a small number of partners, which is ultimately down to monogamy.
So that's what that's a reflection of.
And so, and that case...
Those K-traits, they correlate with intelligence at the group level as well.
So basically, it's monogamy has co-evolved with intelligence.
So that's the first point.
And the second point is that we were under a very strong level of group selection, we Europeans, which itself would have selected for the most intelligent group.
And so what monogamy did, if you've got monogamy, then you don't have inter-male conflict.
And so therefore you don't have like, it's 40% only of Bushmen that breed.
60% of Bushmen don't breed.
You get huge amounts of fighting because of that.
And therefore you get a group that's higher in positive ethnocentrism and cooperation and more able to battle the other group.
I don't disagree at all, but I'll continue down my dark line of thinking that is going to shock people once I get to my...
Once I open up the present and show you what's inside.
So, yeah, I mean, Freud talked about this in the sense of the killing of the father was the kind of beta males aligning together against the alpha who was taking all the women.
This is almost at the kind of basis of the edible complex.
You can take that for what it's worth, whether you think Freud is insightful or...
So we have this, and with those bees on the plains of Africa that fight each other for the females, I mean, 2% of them reproduce?
I mean, of the male's population, 98% is cold, I don't think that's wrong.
But what I'm saying is, so we had industrialization, which was defined by, you know, or was sustained by, say, some...
We could call bourgeois morality and scientific reasoning, etc.
Exploitation of fossil fuels as well.
And then we had monogamy, which is a kind of social contract, you could say.
This idea that we're not going to fight anymore.
Everyone gets their piece of the pie.
And this leads to social stability, which it does.
But it also, the combination of these two things, social conservatism, intelligence, and the industrial revolution, and exploitation of fossil fuels, led to child mortality rates collapsing.
And it led to the development of these spiteful mutants.
So what is feminism?
And the incel, you know, phenomenon that we see, particularly among millennials and Gen Z. Millennials are having tremendously less sex as a whole.
We see the kind of Tinder-ification of sex where, you know, there's, you know, 10 boys, 10 girls.
Eight of those girls are having sex with one male.
Nine of the men are not having sex at all, maybe getting those final two women.
What is this but a kind of reassertion of nature in the sense that feminism is the ultimate shit test?
You have to pass it.
You have to say no to it.
You have to...
Force yourself, you have to be domineering and win out over these feminists in order to breed.
So is not nature, I mean this is a dark thought, is not nature reasserting itself and it's ultimately eugenic in the sense that...
It's an idea that I'm afraid someone else has already had.
There's a colleague of mine and I'm doing a paper with him on the moment and we've written it.
It's basically the same idea.
I'm sure you just stole another one of my ideas, Ed.
Ed can prove that I've written it in detail first.
But yeah, this is basically it.
So one of the things that I talked about in this particular paper was the correlation between feminism and rape fantasies.
So the more strongly a woman identifies as a feminist, the more strongly she has rape fantasies.
The more strongly a woman identifies as a feminist, the more masculinized she is, physically masculinized in terms of 2D, 4D ratio and other measures of masculinization.
So what you're basically, as you say, what you're basically dealing with is a return to nature.
You're dealing with an R strategy.
That's what you have under these prehistoric conditions were situations where you have polygamy, of course.
You have battles between groups.
You have other tribes that come in and just take the women and rape them, basically.
And the dominant male, that's ultimately what you want.
Ultimately, in a society of total instability, chaos, no bonding, no future, live fast, die young.
Ultimately, you want the strongest male.
That's what you want.
How does he show he is the strongest male?
He is physically highly able.
He basically forces his way through the other men to you.
And you literally fight him off.
That's what you see in nature.
These women will literally fight, fight, fight, kill.
Because it's a test of the genetic quality of the male.
And if he gets through that, if he gets through that fight...
To her, and ultimately she is forced to submit.
Then there's another fight, which is her immune system.
So he then produces it in exactly the same way.
A billion spermatozoa, and the entire immune system is thrown at it to kill them, kill them, kill them.
Kill all of them.
And only the best one finally gets through.
It's not some romantic scene like you see in Look Who's Talking To in that movie.
Right?
It's force.
It's rape.
And so this would be where I suggest why it is that about two-thirds of females, according to a study I read, have rape fantasies.
Two-thirds?
Yes.
They gave them tests of social dominance.
Yeah.
And the more socially dominant they are, i.e.
the more masculine, whatever they are, the more likely they are to have these fantasies because, of course, that's their world, our strategy, unstable world.
And then there's different kinds of fantasies as well.
There's different levels of the fantasy.
Let me throw up a few things that will just, I mean, hopefully destroy everything the two of you are saying.
I'm of two minds at this.
For one thing, I'll try to be very concise.
For one thing, I'm familiar with the rape fantasy feminist thing.
I wonder to what extent that that's a repetition compulsion.
The original Freudian theory was that somatic hysterical conditions were the product of child molestation.
This is something that laughed him out of several neurology conferences across Europe when he presented this finding.
And so then he came up with the idea of the PH fantasy.
The child has this imagination of a sexual power fantasy.
But putting that aside, I wonder if we assume that there's some kind of not a massive sexual violence pandemic around the world, but even a relatively minor one, that seems it could account for that.
Are we attributing something to nature or are we attributing something to human maliciousness?
Point number one.
Point number two, more of a question than an answer.
Isn't it generally the lower classes that have abortions?
So isn't that a countervailing force to this idea about lowered child mortality and monogamy creating this dysgenic environment?
I was under the impression I would be curious to know if there's data about this that generally speaking It's lower-class middle working-class peoples who have abortions It's less the case that richer people they have more children.
They're less likely to go to This goes along with my argument.
I don't think we're actually in a...
I think the dysgenic environment was that combination of scientific reason...
Monogamy and industrialization.
And we were ruined by our success in the sense that that ultimately became a dysgenic environment.
What we're seeing now, all these things that conservatives lash out at, including myself, and I understand why they lash out at them, Are this kind of ironic way that nature is reasserting herself.
I mean, she works in mysterious ways.
And she is going to promote eugenics through feminism, through the N-cells dying off.
Sorry, guys.
Through basically all of these phenomena.
That we hate are ways of reasserting the alpha.
And I would even take this further, because I think it's, you know, sometimes, as Freud might say, I mean, your nightmare is your fantasy, or your fantasy is your nightmare.
What image has kind of reasserted itself?
Through the BLM protest, although as a negative one.
Yes, they put up George Floyd in holographic form.
All these fireflies come together in the image of George Floyd.
It's rather horrifying.
But what is the image?
It's the fascist, the Nazi, the Confederate.
It's the badass.
And you sometimes can only achieve, you can only access, to go into Kolokhanian territory here, you can only access the real.
Sometimes through mediation.
You can never see it right on.
You have to look at it askance.
And what are they always talking about?
They're always getting at Nazis, Confederates, fascists.
This is the type that they want.
They secretly desire it.
They want to be taken by a That is what they want.
Even the people who are talking about social justice, they want a fascist to tell them right and wrong, because that would give order to their lives, even if it's just a means of rebelling against something.
The Nazi, the fascist exists as their ultimate fantasy.
It is the social type that they want, and which they might very well be breeding through feminism.
So again, these are kind of dark thoughts, pretty...
Way out there.
And I'm kind of throwing them out there to get a response because I think it's good to get some feedback to get some challenges.
But I don't know.
I think that that is the direction of history.
And sometimes we need to kind of be open to the ironies that nature works in mysterious ways.
I seem to recall that there was a particular subset of...
Pornography.
This was, I think, in the 70s.
Jewish made about German SS soldiers taking Auschwitz concentration camp.
Yeah, I've heard that as well.
I almost said attendees.
They're prisoners of war.
Yeah, I agree.
It's kind of a challenging forth or a bringing forth.
It's a totally unconscious drive.
We have to think like Freud to kind of get at it.
And I think, again, the right will always resist that.
In regard to what Josh said about Freud, I don't think this is some recent phenomenon of these rape fantasies or whatever.
And if you look back at even in the 16th century and 17th century, you had the concept of the incubus and you had witches that would talk about this stuff.
And witches were often sort of socially dominant, sort of aggressive sort of women.
So I don't think that's necessarily a historical point, but I don't think that's necessarily a coincidence.
And as for the abortion issue, there is data on this, and there is no correlation between intelligence and abortion.
And the reason for that is that you get young, silly girls with low IQ that have abortion, but you also get educated, middle-aged women that have abortions.
And so it balances it out, and there is no correlation.
There is a correlation between personality and abortion.
That's there.
I don't remember that, but low agreeableness, just not being a very nice person, high abortion, more likely to have an abortion at any age.
But no, there wasn't one on intelligence.
And we know, we have some genetic data, we know that alleles that are associated with high IQ are decreasing across generations.
So basically more masculine women are more likely to have abortions.
I'm sorry?
Basically more masculine women, if you We're breeding feminine women.
I mean, nature is doing, nature is reasserting herself, and she wants a certain type.
They are these maladaptive, mentally ill people.
They don't want children, and they're screaming, please stop us from having children, give us abortion.
I often wonder if the reason why the Republic of Ireland has gone so mad recently is because it didn't have abortion.
Exactly.
Britain had legal abortion and tacitly accepted abortion before that for a very long time, and therefore all these unpleasant women were not having children.
But they were in our own.
Okay, let me change the subject a little bit because we got off, due to my own, you know, predilections, we got off onto this dark path.
But let me return a little bit to the UNS article just as a summation.
I agree that the proxy of immigration restriction is very flawed for white nationalists.
I agree that they're not getting at the real issue that directly affects people's lives and that is part of this traumatic social change in our...
I agree with that.
I think it is a flawed thing, and I don't think we should pursue it.
But I would say that going forward, in terms of some of the things that I've talked about before, those are kind of dark thoughts and analysis of what's happening.
All that things that I was talking about are kind of bigger than any program or agenda.
But I think going forward...
If you want to call it white nationalism or the alt-right or the dissident right, whatever term you want to use, I actually think that we should be kind of touchy-feely.
And I know that kind of sounds maybe weird, but we should do things that really do affect our lives and affect the future, and I think we should present ourselves as people who have a vision of a beautiful future.
I think environmentalism is something that is very real with people in the sense that we want to have a lived reality, a neighborhood with parks, cities that are livable.
We want wilderness spaces as well.
Uh, I think that's something that we should focus on in terms of an agenda.
I think an agenda in terms of just, are you able to live through this trauma, uh, with things like, um, uh, uh, UBI, uh.
I think we should be talking about continental-wide autarky in terms of production.
Now, we'll never have full autarky.
There's always going to be trade.
Whatever.
But in the sense of a long-term...
I would say 25 years is the low end of the estimate of what it would take to do this.
A long-term project towards autarky.
I think we should promote absolute elitism in higher education.
I think we should start telling people that you should not go to school.
And as a kind of shit test...
In the sense that if you actually are pursuing higher education, you want to do it.
You're not pursuing it because, like, middle-class, you know, stable employment.
You are actually going there to study the ancients and study eternity and study truth.
I think we should start developing a kind of culling of higher education in the sense that this should be for one to five, maybe five at the high end of graduating seniors from high school.
I think we should start getting at these kind of touchy-feely issues that directly affect them.
I am an immigration restrictionist.
I don't want the North American continent to be overwhelmed with people.
I don't necessarily do that for the reasons that other immigration restrictionists talk about.
I think we should be promoting in the immigration front, and I know this is, I guess I like to shock people or be the contrarian.
I think we should be promoting unskilled, dumb immigrants who do not speak English.
And what I mean by that is that there are places for immigrants.
I grew up in Dallas, Texas.
I was surrounded by Hispanics.
They don't bother me.
There is probably a place for them in terms of construction, being a busboy, serving food, etc.
But what we do not want to focus on is what everyone in that movement focuses on, which is they're criminals, they're rapists, etc., in Trump's words.
Yeah, a lot of them are.
Most of them are not.
And when you start going down that line of thinking of we don't want these gangbangers in our country, you go down the line of thinking of we want high IQ, high skilled English language immigrants.
I will remind all of these people in the immigration, patriotic immigration sphere that they're.
There's a billion people in the Indian subcontinent.
There will be a billion people in Africa.
And even in Africa, there are going to be a lot of those people who have 120 plus IQs and who come from elite backgrounds.
They will become doctors.
They will become lawyers.
They will become coders in software.
They will become professionals.
They will become bureaucrats.
And what we don't want to do is having this immaculate.
I think we should basically be doing the opposite of what the immigration reform movement is doing and saying that there is a place for migrant labor.
This is historically based.
But actually, the people we want to keep out are the smart ones.
To a degree, that's more or less what Ron said in the article, that the canard of the violent Hispanic has been...
That's why he titles the article Why White Nationalism Doesn't Work Politically.
He uses the example of Palo Alto and how it became increasingly Hispanic over time, and the crime rate dropped, and there's lots of data on Hispanic influx into what were predominantly black communities before.
Crime rate declines.
I mean this partly as a joke, but I'll say it anyway.
Are you trying to revitalize compassionate conservatism, Richard?
Yes.
We can call it that.
I'm a compassionate conservative.
I want to help the dumb and the poor.
I'm into touchy-feely stuff like environmentalism coupled with nuclear power.
I think that's actually important.
And I want our lives to be livable.
And I recognize the threat to the middle and upper middle class of immigration.
That's the real threat right now.
Again, all these paleos, they always want, we need a Tucker Carlson.
We need to protect the workers or whatever.
I agree to a certain extent, but you're going to be the ones who are going to be replaced by these people.
Much more than the workers.
The coders, the doctors, the lawyers are going to be the ones who are getting replaced.
And again, it's almost this social signal or humble brag about how we want to protect the working class, which is almost always said by people who are middle class.
But it's actually the professional class that is going to be most susceptible in the next 50 years.
Again, I think another problem with...
The patriotic immigration reform is the kind of age of the people.
Their minds got kind of ossified in the 80s and 90s, and they're not really...
We're now in the 2020s, and we need to think in terms of the 2050s and so on, and I don't think they're able to do this.
Well, let's give Ed the final thought on this.
We've been going on this for a little while.
Great conversation.
Yeah, this is fantastic.
Pleasure to be here with you.
But, Ed, final thoughts on, really, this article, anything...
My final thought is that national IQ is associated with all measures of civilization, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to act to reduce national IQ.
Our nation will still be here.
Final thought, final thought, final thought.
Okay, oh, sorry.
Ed gets the final one.
Export Selection