The Nail In the Coffin

When I saw that JF Gariepy was releasing a book related to genetics, I assumed it would be another boring race/IQ/HBD volume that I would have little interest in (given the redundancy of the topic.) However, it would turn out that JF instead devotes his book, The Revolutionary Phenotype to the subject of gene editing. In it, he argues against messing around with the technology of gene editing, making the case that such modifications will lead to the end of our species. He claims essentially that the new and improved lifeforms resulting from this process will eventually replace humanity. For reasons not entire clear to me, JF just seems to take for granted that such a development would be a bad thing. In fact, the entire point of the book becomes moot however, if the reader disagrees with the JF’s premise. JF’s arguments for why gene editing may inevitably spell the end for humans may be astonishingly persuasive, air tight and what have you, but if one doesn’t think that the prospect of humans being replaced by a related, “superior” organism would be a negative outcome, then it’s merely an academic question. The merit of the arguments put forth doesn’t matter one way or the other. The type of people whom will be most receptive to JF’s premise are those already vehemently opposed to gene editing and transhumanism on religious and moralistic grounds (“humans shouldn’t be ‘playing God'”…etc.) They don’t give a rats ass in a room full of cats about the scientific arguments for it being bad other than to the extent such arguments could be used to reinforce their pre-existing religious beliefs (if JF had written a scientifically persuasive book in favor of gene editing, these same people would dismiss it irrespective of the veracity of the arguments.)

I have to admit that I find JF’s ambivalence toward gene editing to be disappointing. Ironically, it actually strikes me as similar to Jordan Peterson warning people of the dangers of identity politics. As Ryan Faulk has pointed out, Jordan Peterson’s audience is primarily white, and the likely effect of his crusade against identity politics will be to make white people (the least overtly ethnocentric group) less likely to engage in it, while other groups continue to use it to their advantage. Identity politics may change in form as new identities emerge, but it isn’t going away. Since non-white groups are unlikely to take Peterson’s advice and abandon group identity, Peterson ultimately serves to convince whites to further handicap themselves and become less ethnocentric than they already are.

What JF does here is strikingly similar. Gene editing is absolutely going to happen. The “genie” (so to speak) is out of the bottle. Even if nations don’t officially sanction it at the public level, there will be scientists which continue with this research privately, and as a practical matter it will be unstoppable. JF’s own thesis backs up this assertion, since he argues that these newly concocted, revolutionary beings will replace us if they are created. Since scientists in Asia or who knows where will continue to move forward with gene editing, these beings will come to be sooner or later. Since JF’s audience is primarily AltRight and “pro-white” types and not rogue Asian scientists, the effect of this book will be to convince the AltRight to simply cede this bio-technological frontier to someone else, even though as humans we won’t be shielded from the effects of others embracing it anyway. Babies are going to be genetically modified. So we can either decide to be at the forefront and help direct this process toward something in our image, or sit passively as others enthusiastically explore this technology and render us irrelevant. The West has typically been at the forefront of technological progress, which is why it was so easily able to dominate large parts of the world, where natives (whom could easily outbreed Europeans) held vastly superior numbers. Even with the most aggressive pro-natalist policies, Europeans are not going to outhump the third world. Why then would Europeans want to deprive themselves of one of the few tools which could offer them some kind of advantage?

Also, the idea that beings which result from experiments in gene-editing will lead to “our” extinction strikes me as a matter of interpretation. Sure, maybe technically such organisms would not be our direct progeny, but just because a baby didn’t pop out of some lady’s vagina, does not mean it isn’t our descendant for all intents and purposes. If the result of gene editing is that something ends up being created which improves upon and replaces humanity, I don’t see what the problem is, since these supposedly “superior” beings would ultimately still be a product of our creation. If not literally, they would figuratively be our children…(and sometimes children do grow up to rebel and take our place.) This seems undoubtedly to me to be a more remarkable achievement though than simply two overweight, reality tv watching, human beasts taking a trip to bonetown and making some disgusting babies. Any idiot with functioning reproductive organs can do that.

This is of course to say nothing of the misanthropic objections to JF’s premise. Anyone who has ever worked retail on Black Friday probably wouldn’t clutch their pearls at the idea of humanity becoming extinct and replaced by something better. A few hours overhearing people’s conversations on public transit or an afternoon reading the hundreds of thousands of replies to a typical Ariana Grande tweet, and I might volunteer to push the button myself.

One thing which JF’s book has managed to do is act as a proverbial “nail in the coffin” in terms of my own relationship with AltRight ideas. JF’s faction was probably one of the few remaining which I could still relate to on any level. His laid back persona, high-profile guest lineup, cogent debate style, and pink pantheresque delivery make for what for what in my mind is probably the only substantive and watchable AltRight program. There are no compelling factions or attractive political movements to be enthusiastic about. People like me are withdrawing and moving toward an abstract, post-political future. I, for one, am ready for whatever comes next.



The Accidental Eugenicists

This article is about 1) how a taboo against incestuous reproduction could be used to make the political mainstream comfortable with (explicit) eugenics, and 2) other ethical considerations surrounding human genetic enhancement – in that order.

One must differentiate what I call implicit and explicit eugenics. The implicit version encompasses those things which all people do in the interest of “good genes” but without actually thinking of it in those terms, such as mate selection.

An explicit, or more explicit, example is the outlawing of incest. The case for doing so is easy to make. Incest can lead to inbred children, and this is probably, in part, responsible for the neuroses that afflict the Islamic world, for theirs is a hyper-consanguineous culture. In recent times, I have come to think that the only chapter in the history of the European Church that one can praise without a dozen or more extensive caveats was their prohibition of inbreeding. As HBD Chick has discussed, this was instrumental in the evolutionary trajectory of (especially north-western) Europeans and the development of uniquely European traits such as individualism.

But how much difference do anti-incest laws make now? I would wager not much. Consanguineous breeding among Europeans is a highly marginal phenomenon even in places where it is legal, and I do not see how criminalising it could be any more effective than anti-drug laws. But Westerners have negative reactions to both incest and explicit eugenics. This could be seized upon, in theory: allow the consensually incestuous adults to have children, but make it mandatory for them to go through screening of the embryo’s genome first once the technology is widespread. The procedure could then be extended to, for example, mothers of advanced age, and then beyond.

The word eugenics is also a problem. Trying to revive it is pointless. A far better strategy would be to adopt a term which is descriptively accurate but with none of the nasty connotations, such as “directed evolution”. Saying “eugenics” purely to inflame people is childish.

I am sceptical of the reflexive libertarian position on human enhancement with respect to traits such as IQ, neuroticism, and all diseases with a genetic basis. Note: abortion-related concerns are moot since this is mostly about pre-implantation embryo selection. I do not see how refusing to use this technology when it is available is morally superior to child abuse. “You may allow a car to be built with a sub-optimal design, but you may not damage it once it is built” seems like the position of people who would condemn the latter but endorse the former of these. Allowing nature to take its course is now a choice, not an inevitability. Why should people be free to make that choice? Again, this is specifically with respect to the traits I mentioned.

Many mainstream leftists who balk at these possibilities are happy to accept that vaccinating one’s children be mandatory. So am I. So why not: increasing children’s genotypic IQ above a certain threshold (whatever it may be), or reducing their genetic propensity to experience negative emotion? Again this is a morally inconsistent position: “You are allowed to improve your car once it is built, but you may not just make better cars or, heaven forbid, mandate that better cars be built.” These mainstream leftists should just accept the moral salience of willfully increasing potential for future harm to their children by either refusing to have them vaccinated or refusing to genetically enhance them.

People will make excuses for why the analogy with vaccination is not a comparable situation, but people only come up with these post hoc. It is like when libertarians whine about the government’s taking away all their money but have no problem with huge global corporations’ outsourcing jobs to foreigners, either home or abroad. The net result is the same: fewer job opportunities – and therefore less money.

Neuroticism and low IQ are things that we happen to not give disease-like names to, up to a point. Where and why is that point set? Well, with neuroticism it is where you are continuously anxious about everything and nothing (generalised anxiety disorder), because this impedes daily functioning. With IQ it is 70, because a person with an IQ below 70 seldom if ever has the wherewithal to perform basic tasks. That threshold will go up, however, when society is technologically complex enough that even those of us between 100 and 135 are rendered useless. As for neuroticism, people are shit-scared of jumping out of planes even though skydiving is, statistically, probably less dangerous than a whole lot of other things they do without a second thought, such as driving. People’s brains are not equipped to assess risk in a technified society such as ours, and neuroticism is strongly anti-correlated with about a thousand negative life outcomes. Some people argue that there is a trade-off to be made with it for “creativity”, but one does not need an anxiety disorder to be creative, and I doubt that whatever difference it makes is worth it in QALYs.

“Everything is allowed unless it is explicitly forbidden. Something is only explicitly forbidden if it can be shown empirically to be harmful.” I do not literally think of those words every time I am pondering solutions to some social problem, but if you reverse-engineer my ideas about society, you will end up with some formula similar to this. I believe this is quite close to the mentality of the typical libertarian, except the primary difference is that most self-identified libertarians would never countenance forbidding inaction, e.g. not vaccinating one’s children. Luckily, I am not so arrogant as to assume the point of view of the universe. Not everyone agrees with me about what should or should not be mandatory. That is fine. They should not have to live around me, nor I them.

Robert Stark Talks to Ashley Messinger About Retro Futurism ( Part II)

Robert Stark and co-host Brandon Adamson talk to returning guest Ashley Messinger. Ashley is based in the UK and writes for Brandon’s You can also find Ashley on Twitter.

Interview can be found here.

Topics Include:

A continuation on the topic of a “Redpilled” SWPL culture and it’s viability
The implicit Whiteness of progressive causes such as Environmentalism, Effective Altruism, and Transhumanism
The importance of being technologically advanced in contrast to gun culture and “Becoming a Barbarian”
Creating City States based on shared interest
Biopunk, Biomorphism, and vertical gardens
Brandon’s interest in 70’s Retro Futurism (ex. Logan’s Run)
Steampunk, Urban fantasy literature, and the technology of Victorian England
Decopunk; the film Dark City
The lack of vision in new architecture and urbanism
Roman Archeo Futurism
80’s Retro-Futurism, Cyberpunk, and Fashwave
The Bearer of “Trad” News
Hip to the Moon: Brandon Adamson Drops Out to Conquer the Stars
Robert’s Journey to Vapor Island; Roger Blackstone’s “Neon Nationalism”
The Man in the High Castle series; the alternative society portrayed and the Retro-Futuristic architecture
Whether Fascism was anti-modern or about creating an alternative modernity
Ashley’s review of the film Call Me by Your Name
Age of Consent Laws
The film The Crush Starring Alicia Silverstone

Hooked on Animatronics

My recent trip to The Rainforest Cafe got me to thinking about how animatronics should feature more heavily in a hypothetical society. Lacking sentience, animatronics offers humans the potential for an interactive experience with nature, yet without the elements of cruelty and exploitation commonly associated with keeping “live” animals in captivity. Imagine how parks like Sea World could flourish if they made the transition to housing mechanical dolphins and Orcas. This could even finally allow them to display versions animals like great whites, which do not seem to survive in captivity. It would also put an end to the senseless park deaths that occur (or at least further minimize them as accidents can always happen). Dinosaurs like the Wooly Mammoth could be resurrected to roam again, all without having to grapple with the ethical considerations. I suppose, if these animatronic creatures were to become high tech enough to develop something of a consciousness, that might be a game changer. It should be go without saying though that even without the ability to feel or reason, these beings should be treated with respect, empathy and decency as if they were as “real” as any other creature. You just never know, and it doesn’t hurt to be kind in this scenario.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism

Postcards From New Suburbia

Sipping a glass of cheap moscato and in between watching episodes of Vega$ on dvd, I thought I would take a break from my “new suburban man of leisure” lifestyle to give a few updates…

I’ve been busy editing Robert Stark’s novel, which can only be described as an insane masterpiece, written in such a way that it will offend just about every type of person. Having seen my fair share of depraved 70’s and 80’s porn and spent several years hanging out in fringe political circles, I’m somewhat desensitized to offensive content at this point. However, what I have found problematic is the atrocious grammar and spelling in the book, for no other reason than I’m lazy, and it ultimately takes longer for me to edit the project. That’s just the trade-off though for a book that runs on pure imagination I suppose. In my own books, I would agonize for ages over a single typo, ready to swallow a bottle of pills over a misplaced apostrophe or improper usage of an idiom. In that sense, I envy Stark… who clearly does not give a fuck about anything but the characters and the storyline.

Some people who have followed my blogs for a long time, may wonder why I don’t write about racial issues as much as I used to. To be honest, I just don’t have a lot to say on it. I’ve written probably close to 70 essays about race, and at a certain point you just become a crank if that’s all you write about. The exception of course is if you’re one of those HBD type bloggers that treats the subject as an academic area of study. I’m not. Admittedly I don’t care that much about “hbd.” I find it to be more of an academic question at this stage. My interest in the topic of race has always been purely for practical purposes. Most non-whites openly say they have no interest in living in a color-blind western society, much less the kind of transhumanist, retro futuristic mini-empire of the sort I advocate… so it’s kind of moot whether or not they theoretically could flourish equally and sustain such civilizations adequately. They don’t even want to, so who cares? It’s like two people arguing whether I’m biologically capable of being a top-tier professional golfer when I don’t even have a slight interest in playing golf, (except perhaps miniature golf…which I’ve been having a bit of nostalgia for having not played since the summer of 1998.) Academic questions are still worthwhile to pursue, but in this case plenty of others are already on it. Anyway, by now most people know where I stand. I have no interest in getting involved in the drama and feuds between various factions and personalities. I don’t care about winning over the masses (who there aren’t even mathematically enough of to make a difference in an electoral system) or appealing to “the eternal normie.” I don’t care about global empires and geopolitics. I’m interested in small-scale tribalism and radical escapism.

Anyway, what else is new? Well, Trump continues to screw the pooch and at this point has almost fully completed his retrogression into a neoconservative republican. He’s essentially useless to anyone who cares about consumer advocacy, workers rights, and staying out of pointless foreign conflicts. His strategy appears to be to talk shit to reporters and celebrities on social media, in an attempt to distract his supporters from the fact that he isn’t implementing any substantive policies that would benefit them. 4D chess? Yeah right. If Trump is playing anything it’s Electric Football…that old tabletop game where the metal football field vibrates and the players move around semi-randomly, occasionally going in the direction you want them to.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism