Image by Gordon Johnson from http://Pixabay.com

The modern fixation on identity politics and denying the reality of genetic variation will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. If we are to avoid an Orwellian dystopian future, we must respect reality, stop playing fantasy political games and find transcendence to take us out of our current quagmire.

THE TROUBLE WITH THE GENETIC PROCESS is that it is not politically correct and does not conform to our modern ideals of fairness and equality. This incredibly complex molecular shuffling and selection system may have been the vehicle by which we have so successfully navigated aeons of time in often hostile and changing environments, but today genetics itself would be in the dock for blatant discrimination and unfairness. You see, the trouble with genetics is that it does not give two hoots for our feelings or social idealism; its sole purpose is individual and collect survival. And that ruthless focus on survival is the only reason that we are here so successfully today and with the astonishing intelligence and dexterity that we have.

Until quite recently, society was ordered largely in relation to genetic advantage, so the intelligent, the beautiful and the physically strong (in sports) tended to be the most rewarded and to hold higher status and power. While this selection process still continues, there is now strong political movement to impose an alternative hierarchical system that is based on perceived victim-hood and disadvantage, turning the genetic hierarchy on its head. This alternative system is often called identity politics.

Identity politics is a means to promote groups of people into positions of power and employment that otherwise would probably not be genetically gifted enough to attain them. It does this by using an unquestioned ideology of absolute equality as justification that society is institutionally biased and oppressive because of its innate inequalities. This then allows those who are less successful in society — those with lower social status — to identify as the “oppressed”, and therefore the ones owed favour and special treatment by society in order to right the wrong of the oppression that must be holding them back. In other words, oppression becomes a tool to justify selective non-genetic privilege.

Many will feel uncomfortable with the use of the term genetic above because it smacks of eugenics and the evils of the Nazis in the Second World War. But the simple fact is that there is genetic diversity, and this diversity bestows advantages and disadvantages on different groups of people in a way that repudiates the ideology of social equality and fairness.

Social equality in the eyes of the law is certainly fundamental to a fair and harmonious society, but only in the context of recognised genetic diversity. If this ideology is accepted alongside a denial of genetic diversity, interpreting the outcome of this diversity as oppression, then the concept of equality has been “weaponised” for political ends and is being used in a way that is damaging to society as a whole.

So the ideology of equality — which is at the very foundation of democracy — can also be a tool of oppression if it refers to anything other than the social value of a person. So we must be careful in putting equality on a pedestal. It may superficially seem a great ideal, but in the wrong hands it can be used to fracture society — turning group against group in a never-ending war against the reality of natural diversity. And in time, this flight from reality destroys democracy itself.

Just as traditional wars are good for the arms industries, these sociological wars are good for the ideological industries — the universities and other institutes of “higher” education which give tenure to individuals who would otherwise be too deranged to function outside in the real world.

What is the natural diversity alluded to above? The genetic diversity primarily regarding intelligence and beauty (and to a lesser extent, strength). However much we do not like it or want it, it is an undisputed fact that different groups of people have different levels of intelligence and perceived beauty.

Beauty may at first glance seem a superficial and subjective diversity, but on closer examination we see that morphogenic symmetry underlies practically all subjective benchmarks of beauty, regardless of race or gender. This symmetry indicates lower genetic mutational load as mutations upsets symmetry. Beauty, therefore, is more than skin-deep and is indicative of genetic fitness. So we have been hard-wired over aeons of time to appreciate symmetry, which implies good genetics. But because beauty at least crosses most social and racial divides, it is easier for society to accept, although there is an unsuccessful movement by progressives to try to eradicate our natural attraction to it. (Good luck with that one!)

Intelligence, by contrast, is a hot potato, so much so that few are prepared to discuss its diversity in society. Even those social commentators who are courageous enough to examine these issues objectively balk at intelligence differences, believing that they are merely a weaponisation of genetics as a means to justify racial divide. Facts can always be used politically, but their denial can cause even more problems. In this case, the denial of differences in intelligence — which can be measured not only by IQ studies but also basic physiological reaction times and colour acuity tests — throw up huge problems in a society that refuses to question the ideology of equality.

We are quite happy to acknowledge cosmetic genetic differences, but considering that 84% of the genome is involved with mapping the brain, it is unlikely that those differences only involve the skin-colour or gender-defining genes. There are objective differences in intelligence between groups of people, and these differences bestow a natural advantage on some groups. (East Asians and Ashkenazim Jews, for example, have the highest IQs and therefore the biggest natural advantage, which is why Harvard recently imposed an Asian quota on admissions to reduce the number of Asians in order to fulfil their diversity quotas.)

But if differences such as those in intelligence are not acknowledged and just brushed under the ideological carpet of equality, then the result of those differences — in this case overall life success which is correlated with intelligence — loses its causal context. This allows those with political agendas to jump at the opportunity to interpret those difference in overall success as a result of whatever oppression they are promoting — unconscious bias, racism, sexism and just about every other type of “ism” — and this affords those who are naturally less successful due to lower intelligence to frame this as the consequence of some conspiring oppression rather than genetic shortcoming. And this interpretation gifts those with political agendas to interpretations that justify special perks and treatment to compensate for this unnatural loss.

This compensation scuppers the natural order of human society that optimises society’s collective use of intelligence, and this order is reflected in what we call traditional values that have built up over generations again in response to genetic diversity and as the best means to maximise our fitness to survive (the best means to use our collective genetics efficiently).

And key to that genetic optimisation of society is freedom.

That is why freedom is so important: it is actually freedom of the individual and of the collective to express genetic potential without too much hindrance. Take away that freedom for whatever ideological reason and you take away the ability of that society to use its genetic heritage for individual and, most importantly, collective good. Without that heritage, society returns to the Middle Ages. It is just an uncomfortable and unsavoury fact that we are not equal mentally, and that this mental inequality gives humanity a potential difference that allows the current of progress to flow.

Of course, most will find such genetic inequalities repugnant and many try to smokescreen them out with their own politically-contrived inequalities and identities. Anything but to face the truth that genetic advantage, whatever its form, exists and needs the freedom to express for the good of society.

Now you may not like freedom because free people are free to act and express themselves in ways that you may not approve of or which are not in the interest of a particular industry, organisation or government. It may well be tempting to downgrade freedom if you have a progressive agenda or want more compliant consumers, but realise that the repudiation of freedom will affect humanity extremely negatively.

Those that are free are difficult to control, and so freedom, especially freedom of thought, must be revoked to have any chance of modifying society and realising non-democratic political ends. That is why the battle front for freedom and democracy is actually in our schools and higher educational institutions. It is here that the young are brainwashed into becoming agents for Big Brother government, all under the guise of shaking up the system to destroy the “old, white, unecological, oppressive and dangerous patriarchy”. But in destroying what has been cunningly portrayed as the problem — the perfect decoy — we find we have destroyed the whole democratic foundation of a free society, and before we know it, our “good” intentions have closed the prison door with us on the inside, peeking out between the bars as we congratulate ourselves on our Pyrrhic victory of inmate equality and cage-safety.

And it is not just the political classes that slime their way to society sell-out, but also the heads of large corporations who want nothing more than a population that is no longer free to make meaningful choices. (Those that are free have the choice not to buy something or to buy something else.) The large corporations inveigle their way into government with bribes, armies of lobbyists, and revolving door employment practises, while at the same time encouraging left-wing politics and the social fragmentation it feeds off in order to increase government size and control.

In this way, humans become a group-think consumer commodity, coerced into accepting and paying for every enforced medication, vaccination, surveillance and taxation program, all for the good of society and our collective “safety”. This is the transformation of society from a population of free individuals in charge of their own fate to an obedient collective commodity at the mercy of those corporations that control government.

To justify this abuse, humans have to be reduced to complex biological machines, which is why atheism is rife for those looking to realise a Big Brother society. There can be no transcendence or divine intervention for those wanting to reduce us to an obedient collective. And so these pernicious ideologues not only destroy our freedoms, but our spirit as well. This is why, for example, the majority of ecologists are atheist, for one cannot support inhuman agendas like Agenda 21 or Agenda 30 without regarding humans as a scourge that needs to be gleefully eradicated.

Extinction Rebellion is a prime example of this sort of death cult that has had to extirpate humanity from nature in order to follow its morbid and amoral political agendas, which actually have little to do with ecology and more to do with dismantling Western civilisation. And it immorally uses an autistic child to bolster its political aims.

This is where we are headed, and it is not a pleasant place for those who value freedom, those who think of humans as much more than just meat-machines, and those who despise social, corporate and government oppression — those who just want to be left alone. So while the ideology of absolute equality may superficially seem an alluring goal — a welcome salve for the admittedly troublesome reality of genetic diversity — the long-term consequences of supporting an ideology that denies reality will be a totalitarian society, for only that level of authoritarian control will be able to hold together a society utterly fragmented by identity politics.

But it will not actually be Big Brother holding things together, but Big Sister, due to the actions of third and fourth wave feminism. Do not be fooled, however, the differences between the two are cosmetic. Both would be as murderous, enslaving and oppressive as the other, although Big Sister will do it with a smile, a pink hat and a social media campaign.

Why would anyone want to live in a Big Sister (BS) society? What possibly could attract anyone to universal oppression?

First, we must understand that, at some point, the alternative to totalitarian control will be complete anarchy, and so the people will clamour for the protection of Big Sister. But that will only come in the final stages of our current social collapse, if it continues. So for now, the attraction is not for total totalitarianism but just for bigger government. If one has political agendas that are not currently popular, the best way of realising them is with big government that can force those agendas onto the little person in the street. And if that sounds anathema to freedom, that is because it is. As government grows, freedoms shrink.

So who favours big government? The following are some of those that do:

• The political left
• Feminists and women in general
• LGBTQ+
• Those with low intelligence (both men and women)
• Racial minorities
• Young people starting out
• The poor and downtrodden

Why these individuals? The reasons are various but they do share a common thread. Each and every one is looking to buck normal genetic hierarchy and limits in numbers in order to gain more wealth, influence and social standing. They are looking for ways to overpower the majority “normal” population despite their relatively small numbers which do not allow them to achieve their goals democratically.

But who would object, for example, to the poor, downtrodden, racial minorities or those struggling with gender issues being given a hand up in society? Surely they deserve it?

The thing about society is that it is always ordered in some way or other. If you are going to ditch the genetically selected hierarchies, all that is going to happen is that another hierarchy is going to be imposed on society, and in this case the hierarchy is almost the reverse of the genetic fitness hierarchy. Society will never be fair; those who need a hand up are going to displace those who do not need that hand, and as such society will lose much of its edge and ability to efficiently generate wealth, produce innovation and effectively run the whole social system. The result of this idealism, much of it for the best intentions, is a deterioration of society and regression of civilisation. So our kindness and idealism of equality ends up destroying all we have built up over the millennia.

When civilisation atrophies, who is going to look our for the interests of the poor and the downtrodden, the minorities, the feminists and the LGBTQ+ communities? Big Sister will not have the resources to continue her vain idealisms and affirmative actions because the harsh genetic selection and natural genetic hierarchy have been snuffed out by political correctness, left-wing idealism and/or ideological “equality”. She suffocates the creative urge, lulling her children into a false sense of security and entitlement. And as dwindling resources implode society, ever ratcheting up levels of insecurity and rage, you can be sure that the people will end up clamouring for the cyanide sweetness of totalitarianism.

That is the thing about freedom: its buoyant effect on society is not immediately obvious, and most are quite willing to jettison it during times of trouble. Freedom is foolishly regarded as a luxury… until it is lost.

Many of us are now aware that there is a PSYOP campaign going on that dresses up this degeneration of Western civilisation as woke transformation that will somehow result in a new and fair society. Slavery is presented as freedom; racism is presented as equality; ideology is presented as fact; exclusion is presented as inclusivity; individuality is presented as extremist; collectivism is presented as freeing; diversity is presented as unifying; and offence is presented as oppression. All this is done in the most aggressive, invective and egregious manner.

This hall of mirrors is the reason why so many feel utterly confused and exasperated by the woke insanity being introduced via the back door. These emotive ideas spread easily on superficial communication systems such as the social media platforms that engage reactivity rather than reason. The more polarising, woke-discriminatory and catastrophizing the message, the more popular it will be on these reactive platforms (which is why most of those who regularly engage in social media platforms like Facebook suffer mental and emotional deterioration).

Woke beliefs superficially promise a better future for all, but because they collide head on with reality of basic human behaviourism and genetic diversity — the product of millions of years of evolution — they serve only to break down the social cohesion fundamental for free and democratic societies, inviting in totalitarian government to brutally compensate for that social breakdown and chaos.

Although this woke insanity is being put out by the Left, you can be sure that the vast majority do not realise the full consequences of the ideas they espouse. Going against biology is never a battle that you can win, although no doubt many will die trying because they are stuck in idealism. They actually believe that they can override biology, and in so doing fragment society and bring in Big Sister. If they are intellectually able or honest, then this will be their actual goal. But most do not think of long term consequences.

Totalitarianism is not the only solution to stave of anarchy and hold together warring groups. A solution put out by the Right is separatism. If disparate groups cannot live together, then separating out those groups allows for the retention of laissez-faire government that minimally encroaches on individual freedoms.

But maintaining the separatism most likely involves overbearing authoritarian control, and while that control is inter-group rather than intra-group, authoritarianism tends to spill over boundaries so that it ends up not just keeping groups separate but trying to control the behaviour of the groups in order to maintain that separation. So separation does not actually work unless there are natural geographical separations involved and universal desire to be separate.

So even separatism usually leads to totalitarianism in the end. You cannot get away from totalitarianism at the enforced political level, whether Right or Left!

The only antidote to totalitarianism is to stop the fragmentation in the first place, and this has to be done largely on at the individual level. It requires tolerance to opposing beliefs and the understanding of the importance of different opinions and their expression. And this can only come from some sort of transcendent perspective that can look down on the entirety of our Earthy lives. But as this perspective is deeply spiritual, those that want greater authoritarian control push materialism at every opportunity so that we identify directly with the oppressive system rather than realising that we are above it and therefore greater than it.

This de-spiritualising of society has largely come from the Left with its godless and pernicious ideologies. Who really wants equality in such a meaningless world?!

The simple facts of human existence are the following:

Racism is abhorrent. But if you put forward a reverse-racism in the name of non-racism then you will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. Give minorities respect by treating them equally with every other race, but not as perpetual and helpless victims that cannot strive for themselves and need special treatment. This is demeaning. Anti-racism is no less pernicious and no less racist than racism.

Oppression of women is abhorrent. But if you push quotas for women just for the sake of gender equality then you will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. Give women respect by treating them as full equals with men in the eyes of the law, but not as babies that need mollycoddling and special treatment. This is demeaning. Anti-sexism is no less pernicious and no less sexist than sexism.

Homophobia and transphobia is abhorrent. But putting these identifications onto a pedestal in the centre of our culture as if they are ideals for the majority to strive for will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. Give every sex and gender equal rights by law, but not a disproportionate ability to influence society and culture.

Poverty is abhorrent. But blaming it on those who have generated wealth or simply sharing out all generated wealth equally may seem fair and just in the short term, but it will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. Far better to give those with few resources the incentive and the means to take responsibility for their lives and rise above victim-hood that keeps them impoverished, and to encourage those with excess resources to freely share them.

Hate speech is abhorrent. But outlawing or censoring it will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. Whatever is expressed will be hated by someone somewhere, for various reasons. Outside of direct calls for violence which should absolutely be discouraged and outlawed, teach people that they can live with being offended, and not only survive but thrive when their ideologies are challenged. To do otherwise is to create a stilted population that will suffocate inside a politically correct safe-space box where nobody dares say anything and victim-mentality looks for offence in every situation.

Aspects of capitalism are abhorrent. But replacing capitalism with anything else will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. Realise that capitalism, although far from ideal, is not only more efficient at innovation and production than any of its alternatives, but respects freedom in the process. At the end of the day, the vast majority of people who live in capitalist societies have a higher standard of living than those who do not. It is not ideal and it can be unjust when governments protect monopolies, but the alternatives are bleak and dehumanising.

Nationalism can be abhorrent. But getting rid of borders will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. Nationalism maintains a sense of belonging and community, and elevates levels of mutual trust. These are vital for freedom and for limiting government. Dissolving borders erodes community and destroys mutual trust, pulling the foundation from underneath freedom and demanding authoritarian governmental control to hold the fragmented society together. Nationalism certainly has a sordid past, but remove it and the consequences will be far worse. You may despise it, but it is only nationalism stands in the way of globalism, and the goal of globalism is to set up Orwellian superstates.

Genetic variations such as in IQ are abhorrent. But pretending they do not exist by interpreting their outcome as nurture and not nature will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. A foundation of democracy is the equality of each individual only in the eyes of the law — we all have the same abstract value or worth. Extend that ideologically into objectivity and you enter a woke fantasy world of endless resentment, offence and conflict. Not only that, but denying reality for the sake of stamping out racism and sexism will only create more virulent racism and sexism, as we have seen. Reality cannot be side-stepped for even the most noble political agendas and affirmative action plans have severe and unforeseen consequences.

Aspects of religion and spirituality are abhorrent. Religion can be and has been incredibly abusive, but replacing transcendent beliefs and practises with atheism and materialism will destroy democracy and enslave us in totalitarianism. As long as we are looking past government to a higher authority beyond even death then the end can never justify the means because valuable divine beings are involved. When we find transcendence, we are empowered not to be victims to any system and have the strength to oppose genuine oppression. Atheism, on the other hand, encourages apathy and defeat — a “live for now” and an “end justifies the means” mentality in the face of existential meaningless.

We live in a time where the vast majority of us are now terrified of having and expressing abhorrent views. Indeed, abhorrent views are becoming illegal under new “hate speech” laws. And so in our efforts to be ever so nice and inclusive, we are each responsible for destroying democracy and laying the foundations of totalitarianism. Each time we take the easy or “nice” way out by giving special interest groups excessive privileges and unearned resources, we invite an Orwellian nightmare.

And social media is accelerating this process: it is training us to go for the likes while at the same time discouraging and censoring abhorrent viewpoints. The result is that time spent on social media is priming us in our compliance to become agents of democratic destruction. We are becoming so “like-thirsty” that we refuse to support the necessary tough political stances necessary to maintain freedom and democracy. Whilst most would not actually want totalitarianism, they are not prepared to be unpopular enough to oppose it.

https://realitymaps.com/2019/11-genetics-identity-politics-totalitarianism.html