La Russophobe has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

EDITORIAL: Speculating about Darwinian Russia


Speculating about Darwinian Russia

An interesting article appeared last week the the Economist magazine. It reported a theory attempting to explain why women dominate men in the lifespan contest -- which could arguably be the most important single contest human beings ever wage.

The theory, advanced by Tim Clutton-Brock of Cambridge University and Kavita Isvaran of the Indian Institute of Science in Bengalooru based on some research studies among birds, is that Darwinian evolution selects men for their ability to attract women. Since this ability is largely based, because of men's inherently violent nature, on physical confrontations that, at least in the distant past, often led to fatalities, evolution found no use for the capacity for long lives among men (they'd be killed off fighting over women anyway, so what would be the point). Instead, evolution vested them with the ability to collect women by possessing such things as "antlers, aggression and alloy wheels" and, having done so, to live long enough for a few key breeding seasons before perishing. With no such obligations, women could focus on longevity, and have done so to great effect. The study found that in certain species where competition over females does not occur and monogamy is the rule, the difference in lifespan between male and female was far less pronounced.

In another article, which we publish today, the Economist asks what the affects of Stalin's purges and famines, which murdered tens of millions, have been on the modern Russian man -- an speculates that today's Russian may have become genetically afraid (another word would be cowardly) as a result of such systematic attacks. There are two great ironies in such a theory. First, one of the most bizarre features of modern Russian life is the country's xenophobia, now rendered totally irrational in this light (its own leaders have been far more dangerous to Russians than all the imperially-minded depots of other lands combined). Second, Russians routinely depict themselves as a heroic nation, bravely defending themselves against outside invaders. How is that to be squared with such craven cowardice towards their own rulers?

Note, too, that a vicious circle is created: Genetically cowardly Russians will not stand up to their rulers, who then, free from supervision, murder and torture even more brutally, giving rise to even more deep-seeded paranoia.

If one then reflects upon the Clutton-Brock--Bengalooru thesis, one can't help notice that if Russia is viewed as an inherently violent society where mass murder is common, we shouldn't be surprised to see the country's average lifespan suffering in comparison to that of other countries -- and Russian men, still beset by the standard need to compete for women, would receive a double whammy. This would explain, of course, why the average Russian man does not live to see his 60th year.

It's another vicious circle. The more violent Russians allow their government and their society to be (today's Russia has the fifth-highest murder rate in the whole world, and that's based on the data the Kremlin will admit; Russia's true rating could well be even higher), the less Darwinian evolution feels they need longevity. But the less longevity they have, the less time they have to make babies. A population-crushing vortex could result.

But under that thesis, evolution should vest Russians with extreme fertility. Russian should breed like rabbits in the short term, and Russian men should be particularly potent. Mother Nature always looks to achieve a balance. Yet what we actually see in Russia is the opposite, Russians are getting less and less interested in having babies, to the extent that the Kremlin has actually decided it needs to bribe them to do it.

Because the human brain is a very powerful thing, maybe even powerful enough to overcome evolution. Possible Russian parents look at the society into which they are being asked to bring children, and they balk. They ask themselves if it would be fair to bring children into a neo-Soviet state. They ask themselves if they want to take on an additional responsibility in a dog-eat-dog world where many don't know where their next meal is coming from. Having a child is an optimistic act, and Russia, especially these days, is a fundamentally pessimistic place.

So even if they have the fertility bug, they choose not to use it.

And what if they don't have it? Who says Darwian evolution is perfect? The dinosaurs went extinct, didn't they?

Gulp. Maybe the Russians will too.

1 comment:

Artfldgr said...

On demographics.

The analysis was way too simple. It was 1 for 1 and such, and there are SEVERAL solutions to the problem and so the remainder is not what you think it is. I have not read the Economist article, so I will not work from that. I will just work from the demographics.

There are other effects to such exterminations. At their most basic, they are a form of selective breeding. This activity is classically Darwin, and it can be applied in MANY areas. Socialism, Feminism, communism, exterminations, ALL have an effect and a deep effect on demographics.

Since this is LaRussophobe, lets start with the Russian system. Contrary to modern belief the system has always been brutal. From the brutality of nature to the brutality of the leaders. So by nature, Russians are tough people. The demographic response would be that they have a high tolerance for adversity. In the past this adversity kept others from that area, and so those who could adapt to that, survived better. Call it a version of “home team advantage”.

Like all things it has a good side and a bad side… and lots of its bad side comes from the good side when it has nothing to exercise itself against. This tolerance for adversity will mean that they will live under conditions that most others will want to reject and do something more about.

There are a lot of races on the planet, and a side effect of pogroms is that the people who are subject of them end up having a smarter population because of it. Cannibalism and attempted genocide, has an effect on MIND.

It does NOT necessarily passive people. The States attack on its own was not so cleanly cut along ideological lines. One only has to take some time to figure out that who they killed didn’t exactly line up with what they say. They also added a randomness to it that would befuddle. A large portion of the population who were more passive and more “herd” oriented would do better (on average). Those that didn’t want much would also do better.

Those two are the most common that the musings of people in the west always bring up, and some like to then take it to pet theories that lead to kind of truthful jokes. Why are the Russians not capitalist enough? No one has told them to be. Living light is also something that doesn’t leave you. in this you can take the communism out of the country, but the people are going to remember it and act all their lives (as people in the US did with the great depression).

There is also a few more that do well. It is also important to note that they do well because the ideological system creates a framework. Which is a given and what they say. What they are not good at is saying, what are the kinds of people that will succeed in this framework, and what are the kinds that will not, and what is the outcome of such. to do so smacks of eugenics, and such, but that’s exactly what it is. (and is another core reason why socialism will not work – more on that later if I don’t go on too long).

The OTHER kinds that will do well in the soviet system are the thugs, and the sociopath/psychopath, etc. In fact they would be the most competent group. the sociopath is cold and calculating, and uses other people. In this way, others can take the fall for them, and all manner of things. They lie with no remorse, can kill without guilt, live on misery, and as Lenin said, such people can be useful. The ingratiating do not do well, they are tattle tales and such are considered to have traitors blood just as the germans believed on the issue. if they would tell on their contemporaries for gain, people they are closer to than family a good amount of the time, then they would find it easy to betray the state.

So those who are the most competent sociopaths rise, they become the cream. Thugs do well because they do dirty work. Sociopath man would think themselves to be the new man, the man without all those weak ideas like morals, religion, social rules, etc.

Socialism is rule by sociopaths. Who else can give and take life freely without guilt? Who else can think its their duty and can break a few eggs and such and not think twice. Who can shove us into digital lives. you fit into a category, there is no spectrum, just arbitrary divisions to thin information to something that can be worked with by rule, and in that way keep lower sociopaths in check.

Theirs is totalitarian, because theirs is a world in which everyone lies, manipulates, cheats, and so forth. it’s a form of focused paranoia. And so the rules are there to make sure that someone lower down doesn’t have the freedom to act on their own. After all, if you were free to treat sociaopaths the way they should be handled, isn’t that what you would do?

Sociopaths use people, and socialism is like “players” taken to the state level. They know how to work their victims. They come up with all manner of lies and test them over and over to see if they work. a little vanity, a little guilt, etc… they also look down on everyone for following them, and letting themselves be controlled by such feelings.

Socialism is great, but only if the people could exterminate sociopaths (of both sexes). Agripina did a lot of trouble by psychopathically manipulating and poisoning people around her. The monarchies were much the same.

America was actually the first political system that was NOT created to favor sociopaths. They had to change a lot of laws and things so that they would be favored. Which is why capitalism isn’t the same as it was, but is now fascism. Oh, and when we asked politicians to BE someone who believed what we want someone to BE in office, rather than look for merit and a person that can vote their constituency, we changed it in favor of sociopaths.

For the sociopathic type control freak, communist Russia is the way it should be run. No one owns anything, and the well connected and manipulative sociopath can do well in state. The pogroms make quiet plotters who are patient. It makes people who are more biased and paranoid, and it favors the sociopathic.

Is it any wonder that these regimes tend towards a lot of the same thigns in different mixes and colors and disguises?

Socialism is the king of all scams. They manipulate to get into state power. Then by cross fertilizing each other while the other types of humans are trying to play a game of merit, and argument, and rules they think are important. They grow in power. Few have realized how they did it, but it isn’t so hard (get a circle of people who are committed to power at any cost, each one writes articles and commentary, and each one cross writes to each other. voila, you have the feminist movement. Just add some external backing and direction as to the things you worked out and you got them hook line and sinker).

Quotes from lennin as to things like the west hanging itself, he was not referring to the west as America, but the sociopathic vs the good guys. That HIS kind, not Russians but sociopaths, will rule on behalf of the proletariat. But if you look the people that they set free are locked down tighter than a frogs ass underwater.

The people are assumed to be like the leaders, and so they are assumed to be highly resourceful, focused, not slow, etc. so the leaders treat them as if they have only temporarily won over the other sociopaths. In the west, the sociopaths have more the attitude of the pragmatic farmer. He knows his cows are different, and that they are happy to live their lives out before they have their necks slit, and as long as you don’t tell them, they will just hum along and tinker away.

Such leadership never stays stable long. its always after each other. the stakes are the highest. With no guilt, no religion, they are TOTAL PRAGMATISTS. Sentiment is a nothing other than motivating other people.

True to people as material, their thoughts mean nothing, as long as their material bodies comply, is how they work things. While the others, who are individuals, think their thoughts mean something, and think that their PERSONAL versions are what they support even though they march to take back the night. They never realize that that’s the power game in a non sociopathic state. To get lots of people believing their own personal versions of things, even if they are contradictory, and hang from that a word, that really has no meaning and so can be everything to anyone that has a personal version that says they can be a part of it. so you have feminists for porn, feminists against porn, feminists who make porn, feminists who write porn, who protest against it, etc. the point is that all these people, even the ones who are against each other, are under the meaningless banner of feminism.

Like Marxism, it cant be proved or disproved… it has no real tenets and points, and even does the same confusing thing that allows the leaders to know who knows the game. Those that can act like they believe contradictory things and are higher up are sociopaths who realize their saying the lines is the same as “I am with you”, the others are filtered out since they are not able to do that since its ridiculous to believe the point. In one fell swoop, they know who is a club member, and they pat them on the back moving them up.

So demographically the population becomes more herdlike, except for the wolves. The paranoid, the passive, the follower, the sociopath, the thug… they are favored by totalitarian socialism.

Regular socialism favors sociopaths… the distribution of wealth does a similar thing to the general population. In Russia it makes those who are more passive adaptive and tolerant make up the servile masses for the sociopathic leaders.

In the west birth control, abortion, and even more important, redistribution of wealth kills the middle class type person. the same that ends up in a gulag. Though it does its job by making them have marriage problems… and they are responsible enough to not have kids… and so they don’t. or you tell women to put off kids so that they have more down syndrome kids, or miss their fertile years (too bad oh well). You promote sex, so that people don’t invent and they don’t work on higher things, and grow better, but debase themselves and mess their lives up, which restricts births. On and on it goes.

Then those who are incapable of doing a lot better are favored and the whole system is made to rock on lies that others learn not to question. So the stupid and dysfunctional can have 5 kids, while the more functional and such, worry about affording one.

When you rob from the middle class where the wealthy grow out of, you separate the haves from the have nots. That’s why the more socialist we become the more the division spreads. Or hasn’t one notices that baby booms and plenty and such were BEFORE socialism. The greatest joke on the masses is setting up their doom as their salvation and then watching them run to it. it’s the kind of thing that makes sociopaths feel superior, and feel in control, and justify their mistreatment of others.

Stalin did not regret the millions…it was his only way to feel power… a sociopath does not get pleasure from good, it gets pleasure from control. even in the west you can see this.

Feminists tell you what you should educate, what you should believe, who you should mate with, who you cant dislike, who you have to like, who is your real enemy, when you should have a kid, and how many partners, and what sex those partners should be too.

The point is that they are not working for women, they are working to exercise control. when they do something and such, they have a rip watching all the ants work for them. its heady to write a puff piece, then watch the travelers copy the angle, and then the useful idiots join in too.

And everyone defends it too. Because the death is set up in the salvation, they will defend it. so rather than cast out family hating, communist, etc feminists… they each reform it into personal versions STILL under the same leadership. They have been pulling on women what putin has just started pulling on Russia!

This is why also these other entities (fronts) don’t appear in nations turned. They are the tools of distruction. They are the operational equivalents of more punitive methods of remolding the modern man.

In BOTH forms, the meddling with things, changes the demographics of the population.

Note that the capitalist system, was the ONLY system that allowed for the species to get smarter without killing to get their.

In a capatlist system that is not co-opted, and bastardized, those who are smarter get rewarded for sharing their smarts. They start their own companie,s and their families prosper. Those who are not as good, do well, but don’t do well enough to have as many kids. They are not slaves and they are not unhappy, they are envous of the others, which is why they will side with a sociopath telling them what they want to hear and in a way where they don’t see it as “there is more of us than them, lets go take their stuff and make it ours”. (then what is never asked)

So cannibalism pitted man against man. Those smarter than their fellow man got the bonus, those not so smart, lost.
You will read lots of politically correct stuff on it, but it never holds up (like the recent new scientist piece on tubers being the key – they are not – in fact, they would do the opposite if we didn’t need to think harder to get them).

Man is smart because man preyed AND cooperated with man.
When one group preyed on another group, they were ratcheting up the smarts scale.
Just as dumb groups get overrun by smarter groups with better tools.

So cannibalism started it… wars speed it up… and spreading out all over created more variability to develop differently and then clash…

Its also not so easy as smarter do better… there is a reason why MOST of us are not sociopathic, gay, deformed, schizophrenic, etc. all populations on the fringe that Darwin would say “are waiting for a world of conditions to make them dominant”. Which is why the socialist story works so well on them. it says join us and the misfits will rule the world!!

All I see is the leaders using people. 16 people created cuba of today… how many were the few that moved the revolution in Russia? How about the one in china?

Where are the seats of respect held by all those who were next to them? oh yeah, stalin made sure that he would save on all maner of hallmark cards.

This is probably the most important and least discussed reason that the state should not be in the game of redistributing wealth. Because that becomes, regardless of what desire or rules they make, a state run breeding program for future human generations.

Go take a look what they are making… they have spent a long time working to capture the inventiveness of the individual. Go to MIT lemelson area and you will see that they are promising inventing by group..

The reason is that by doing this… in a group, caucus, soviet… the work of the invidual becomes the work of the group. the problem is that the individual stops putting in, and there is no way to tell.. they go dry… as its easier than doing all the work.

If their ideologies do not reflect LIFE… the populations whither, and are over run by others… they may not even be the smartest… in fact, the smart are smart enough to trick themselves dead.

Demographics creates more than one population inside the whole population. It never yields homogeneity, but a set that succeeds better than another set.

Next time the west makes a law like VAWA, or some other entitlement program… or empowerment concept… think about what it will mean demographically.

Perimenopause starts at around 28… a large number of women will not have babies THAT THEY WANT… the leaders are happy… they hate humans, they hate themselves…but the fewer families of gullible people who self exterminate by someone conning them, they deserve it (as it also pumps up their feelings of power). In another language, it’s what they call “keeping it real”.

{its funny that women got so pumped up about themselves, that they thought the first types of politicians they would support were women who were good…when they had no practice picking them. of course without that experience, they would tend to first try sociopaths. As marx and others figured out, we would never get a second try. Its how it happened in germany}