Evolutionary Psychology

Why are some people responding to the assassination of Charlie Kirk with the phrase “Nothing ever happens”?

/14 Comments/in , /by

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the very same people who now tweet “Nothing ever happens” in response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, will be tweeting that they always knew there’d be a civil war if one actually does break out. As the cliché has it, nothing ever happens . . . until it does.

 A not uncommon response among right-wing “very online” people to the vicious assassination of Charlie Kirk has been three simple words: “Nothing ever happens.” On the one hand, this is, perhaps, an attempt to be a contrarian and seem deep and edgy accordingly. Many conservatives are reacting with understandable fury to the murder of the 31-year-old Trump ally and are arguing that this is a “turning point” and even that it is the first shot fired in some kind of civil of war.

But on the other, “Nothing ever happens” appears to reflect a common, evolved psychological bias. As a rule, our psychological biases evolved, in essence, on the Savannah, when we were still living in our evolutionary match. Now that we live in a very different environment — one where we regularly interact with strangers and even with people of different races — this bias may be more of hindrance than a help.

As Pascal Boyer pointed out in his book Religion Explained, we have many evolved cognitive biases. We over-detect causation. Show people dots moving at random on a screen and they will insist that they are moving in some kind of pattern and even that there is a process of causation behind this pattern, such as claiming that the blue dot starts it off, for example. It is adaptive to find patterns in the world such that we can better make sense of and control the world. If we over-detect patterns, then we won’t miss a pattern when there is one. This leads to a bias towards seeing everything as interconnected and, of course, towards conspiracy theories.

Similarly, we are evolved to over-detect agency. If we are in the primeval forest and we hear a sound then, if we wrongly believe it to be a wolf, we have lost nothing. But if we incorrectly assume it to be the wind, when it is in fact a wolf, we may have lost everything. So, it makes sense, it is adaptive, to assume that there is an agent behind events. This is why, when people are under stress and thus highly instinctive, the whole world may feel like an agent and the whole world may suddenly all appear interconnected and to make sense. And this leads us to certain kinds of religious experiences.

The “Nothing ever happens” response is likely to be a similar kind of adaptive bias. If you are right-wing, in the insane Clown World in which we find ourselves, it may be adaptive to be pessimistic in order to manage your own feelings — such can be the crushing nature of disappointment. According to the study “Defensive Mechanism: Harnessing Anxiety as Motivation,” an optimum level of pessimism motivates people to prepare and reduces anxiety about an uncertain world. It results in better academic performance; being able to think more logically.

Another study, “Pessimism, optimism and depressive symptoms,” found that mildly depressed individuals with pessimistic outlooks were better at assessing risks and avoiding unrealistic optimism (and thus crushing disappointment), aiding decision-making in uncertain environments. But, of course, the fact that you feel pessimistic does not mean that your predictions about the future are correct, as they have nothing to do with the nature of the evidence. You may be examining that evidence in a slightly more logical manner than the optimist, but this does not make your gut reaction inherently right. Your reaction, to use internet parlance, is a “cope.”

A second, broader, explanation behind the insistence that “Nothing ever happens” may well be Nomalcy Bias, which is that we tend to disbelieve or minimize warnings of serious threats. Let’s be clear, there will be nothing pleasant about a civil war, except, possibly, in the very long term, if the side we are on wins it. Telling yourself, in such a context, that “Nothing ever happens” will reduce immediate stress. Also, in pre-history, it may have been true that nothing much ever does happen, at least nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Accordingly, this cognitive bias means that we don’t waste energy thinking about or reacting to threats that are probably nothing to really worry about.

Naturally, this cognitive bias can have very serious consequences when something seriously out-of-the-ordinary actually does happen. In 79 AD, Mount Vesuvius erupted, destroying the city of Pompei and most of its inhabitants. The townsfolk ignored the signs, such as intense earthquakes in the build up to the eruption. People continued to bake bread and renovate their homes even as ash began to fall on the city. This is why so many of them were found buried in their houses, having made no attempt to escape. To give a more recent example, in summer 2022, there was a terrible heat wave in the UK. Many people downplayed its seriousness and ignored government warnings (possibly understandable, considering the lies recently told during Covid). The result was houses catching fire and 3000 excess deaths due to heat stroke and related issues.

The cry of “Nothing ever happens” may well, in part, reflect this cognitive bias, a bias which has been adaptive for most of our history. The bias likely explains why sudden changes — such as the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and of the Soviet Union — generally seem to take us by surprise. All of the signs of collapse are there but our reassuring normalcy bias means that we are adapted to not notice them and to not think about them. Then, when it does happen, another cognitive bias hits in, “hindsight bias,” where, in order to feel that your world makes sense and that you are perceptive, you tell yourself that it was all inevitable and even that you knew it was going to happen all along.

We vary in the degree to which we are instinctive. Intelligent people are better able to rise above their cognitive biases, meaning that they are less instinctive. Neurotic people, subject to constant anxiety, are less able to do so, so they may be more instinctive. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the very same people who now tweet “Nothing ever happens” in response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, will be tweeting that they always knew there’d be a civil war if one actually does break out. As the cliché has it, nothing ever happens . . . until it does.

Knife on Earth: Exploring the Idiocy and Arrogance of Two Atheist Icons

/7 Comments/in , , /by

The Genetic Book of the Dead is a good read by Richard Dawkins. Knife: Meditations after an Attempted Murder is a bad read by Salman Rushdie. One is about science, the other is about society. The two books are very different and so are the two authors. Dawkins is White; Rushdie is brown. Dawkins is ancestrally Christian; Rushdie is ancestrally Muslim. Dawkins is a scientist; Rushdie is an egotist. Dawkins has earnt his success; Rushdie has been given his.

Good read and bad read: Richard Dawkins’ The Genetic Book of the Dead and Salman Rushdie’s Knife: Meditations after an Attempted Murder

But Dawkins and Rushdie are united by two big and important things. They’re both atheists and they’re both members of a political cult. It’s a cult dedicated to the destruction of everything its members claim to hold dear. In other words, it’s a suicide cult and it’s called leftism. Dawkins’ leftism is intermittent and indirect in The Genetic Book of the Dead, which is about evolution and genetics. Rushdie’s leftism is overt and obtrusive in Knife, which is about the near-death experience he underwent in 2022. He was attacked with a knife whilst appearing at a literary festival in upstate New York. In his own words, he was at the festival “to talk about the importance of keeping writers from harm.” Rushdie, of course, recognizes the irony of that.

A logolatric littérateur

At the festival, he was very seriously harmed by a New Jersey man called Hadi Matar. And Rushdie does not recognize the full irony of that. Like all mainstream leftists, he sees absolutely no contradiction between a description like “New Jersey man” and a name like “Hadi Matar.” Leftists like Rushdie believe in what Vox Day satirically calls magic dirt, that is, the ability of residence on Western soil to transform Third-World folk into First-World folk — in effect, to turn non-Whites into Whites. But the dirt isn’t magic, as Rushdie found out in upstate New York. Or rather, as he didn’t find out. You can see that from the book he wrote about nearly dying at the hands of a New Jersey man called Hadi Matar.

Knife proves that Rushdie doesn’t believe only in magic dirt, but also in magic words. Again, that’s mainstream leftism. Rushdie and other members of the suicide-cult believe that words govern reality. Indeed, Rushdie is not merely logocentric, or centered on words, but logolatric, or worshipful of words. He may claim to be an atheist, but in fact he bows deep and long in the temple of Vayu, God of Wind. Rushdie’s worship of words and wind is part of what makes Knife a bad read. It’s partly a form of self-worship, because Rushdie regards himself as a great writer, a master of words and lord of language. So do leaders of his suicide-cult. That’s why they’ve showered him with honors, decade after decade, and why they paid such fulsome tribute to him after he was nearly murdered by that “New Jersey man.” In Rushdie’s words again, the festival was supposed to be a place “where ideas were debated in an atmosphere of openness, tolerance and freedom.” Instead, it was turned into a place of butchery.

The triumph of Enlightenment values

But Rushdie has neatly turned the tables in Knife. Or so he and his leftist readers will fondly imagine. Part of the book consists of a dialogue he imagines taking place between himself and “the A.,” as he calls Hadi Matar. That abbreviation stands for the “would-be Assassin, the Asinine man who made Assumptions about me, and with whom I had a near-lethal Assignation,” as Rushdie states explicitly (p. 5). It can also stand for “the Asshole,” as Rushdie surely meant his readers to infer. He’s a master of ambiguity, irony and implication, after all. He’s also master in the pages of Knife. He writes this of “the A.”: “He does not really want to talk to me, but as this is my imagination at work, he has no choice.” (p. 136) That’s the magic of words. “The A.” has no choice but to have a “conversation” with Rushdie and be defeated by Rushdie’s eloquent exposition of Enlightenment values. At the end, Rushdie informs his imagined interlocutor that he has been on the wrong side of “a quarrel between those with a sense of humor and those without.” (p. 167)

Take that, Islamists! You have no sense of humor! You should be like Christians and let your religion be mocked, satirized and subverted by leftists like Salman Rushdie. Did Christians try to stab anyone after a homosexual poet called James Kirkup published a poem about a Roman centurion having necrophilic sex with the freshly crucified corpse of Jesus Christ? No, they didn’t. Did they try to stab anyone after a “transgressive artist” called Andres Serrano published a photograph of a crucifix in a jar of urine? Again no, they didn’t. But Rushdie never mentions those attacks on Christianity or the forbearing Christian response. When Christianity was strong, Christians punished their enemies and critics; now that Christianity is weak, Christians turn the other cheek. Unlike Salman Rushdie, Islamists have no “sense of humor.” And unlike Salman Rushdie, Islamists understand the rules of power. They can see that Christianity in the West is decadent and dying, which is why they have no intention of behaving like Christians now that they are in the West.

Shah Shmah…

And who imported them into the West? Who subsidized them to breed and build mosques and steadily expand their power and influence? Leftists like Salman Rushdie, of course. But he doesn’t discuss immigration in his book. He doesn’t discuss the rape-gangs of Rotherham either. Or the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow in 2016. It would have been instructive for him to do so, but not in a way that assisted the all-important cause of leftism. Like Salman Rushdie, Asad Shah was attacked by an Islamist with a knife for committing blasphemy. Unlike Salman Rushdie, Asad Shah was not surrounded by friends and supporters at the time, so the humorless knifeman got what he wanted: a dead blasphemer.

But noisy defenders of free speech like Salman Rushdie and Kenan Malik, a staunch supporter of Rushdie, have never written about Asad Shah. They’ve refused to explore the fascinating parallels between two knife-attacks separated by the Atlantic and united by Islam. That’s why Asad Shah was the victim of what I call a meteor murder, that is, a murder that flashes throughout the headlines of the mainstream media and then disappears for ever. Meteor murders reveal the truth about Third-World immigration, you see, and leftists like Rushdie and Malik are not interested in the truth. As I’ve described in articles like “Martyr with a Machine Gun” and “Malik’s Moral Compass,” the murder of Asad Shah demonstrated how a long Muslim tradition of censorship-by-murder had been exported from Pakistan to Britain. In other words, when you import Third-World people, you inevitably import Third-World pathologies too. That’s why Rushdie ignored the murder of Asad Shah in Knife, although he did mention the attempted murder of the Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz in 1994 (p. 134). That took place in Egypt, when an Islamist attacked Mahfouz with a knife for “offending Islam.” Egypt is a Muslim country, of course. But why did the same thing later happen to Asad Shah in Britain, which is not a Muslim country, and to Salman Rushdie in America, which is not a Muslim country either?

“The spirit of young Trayvon Martin”

The answer is simple. It’s because the non-Muslim countries of Britain and America have imported ever-increasing numbers of Muslims. There are knife-attacks by “Islamists” all over the earth because Muslims have migrated all over the earth. But Rushdie never points out that obvious fact. Just like the Islamists whom he claims to oppose, he isn’t interested in the truth. No, he’s interested in advancing the cause of his favored ideology. That’s why he ignored the murder of Asad Shah and mentioned the murder of Trayvon Martin. Rushdie and other leftists think it was a murder, anyway:

After the World Voices event, as the audience came out onto Cooper Square beneath the gaze of the statue of Peter Cooper on its plinth, a candlelight vigil in support of Black Lives Matter was taking place. The spirit of young Trayvon Martin, whose murder by George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman’s disgraceful subsequent acquittal, had inspired the movement that became BLM, was also in the air. (p. 27)

That’s a good example both of Rushdie’s leftist love of lies and of Rushdie’s bad writing. The two things go together, in fact. Someone who supports civilization-wrecking thugs like Trayvon Martin will also tend to be a bad writer. And a bad thinker. The ugliness of leftism makes itself apparent in many ways, from the ugliness of leftist punims to the ugliness of leftist prose. But there are exceptions, of course. Richard Dawkins is a leftist, but he has an attractive face and writes attractive prose. That’s why I was able to read The Genetic Book of the Dead in a way I couldn’t read Knife. I got bored and skimmed some of Rushdie’s book. I read all of Dawkins’ book with close attention. And I intend to read it again. Dawkins is talking about fascinating things: genetics, evolution, the dazzling diversity of life on earth. All of his books do that and I still admire Dawkins as a scientist and popularizer of biology. But I no longer admire him as an ideologue. In fact, he and Christopher Hitchens did sterling work in turning me away from leftism. Dawkins is a good writer and Hitchens was a bad writer, but they have three big things in common: arrogance, autism and atheism.

Attractive White scientist Richard Dawkins, inspiring to leftists (photo from Nature)

Ugly Gypsy rapist Ivan Turtak, imported by leftists[1] (photo from Daily Mail)

Like ugly leftist punims and ugly leftist prose, the three things go together. And I can see Dawkins’ autism much better now, reading The Genetic Book of the Dead, than I could reading The Blind Watchmaker in the 1980s. It isn’t just autism and atheism that go together: it’s autism and science. Dawkins is obsessive and dedicated to detail. He likes sorting and systematizing, cataloguing and classifying, and he loves the digitality of DNA. I like all those things too, but Dawkins accompanies them with arrogance and dogmatism, which proved too much for me in the end. Although I’m still unable to believe in God, I don’t want to be an atheist in the style of Dawkins and Hitchens. For one thing, I now see that their atheism is a central part of the leftist suicide-cult. Just as Salman Rushdie claims to love free speech and has spent all his life helping to destroy free speech, so Dawkins claims to hate religion and has spent all his life helping to promote religion. In other words, Rushdie and Dawkins are devout believers in the suicide-cult of leftism, which is replacing the successfully neutered religion of Christianity with decidedly unneutered religion of Islam.

Predatory parallels

How could Dawkins do that, when there are obvious lessons to be drawn from biology about the idiocy of importing alien species? Take the flightless birds of New Zealand, which Dawkins discusses in another good book of his called Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution (2021). They evolved to be flightless because they lived on remote islands, safe from predatory mammals like stoats and cats. So what happens when stoats and cats are introduced to New Zealand? Slaughter, that’s what. And not just of flightless birds like kiwis: New Zealand has lost species of full-flighted birds to introduced predators too.[2] A thousand miles across the ocean, Australia offers more lessons in the harm done by introducing new species to long-established ecosystems. From rabbits to cane-toads, the newcomers have flourished and wrought havoc on native fauna and flora. And leftists long ago learnt those ecological lessons. They would recoil in horror if someone suggested importing a full range of fauna and flora from Pakistan or Somalia or China into Britain or America or France. You should not intermingle ecosystems like that! Delicate balances will be disturbed, ecological webs rent asunder! Native species will be devastated or destroyed!

Imported predators: a stoat and members of a Muslim rape-gang (images from Wikipedia and BBC)

But one species is exempt from the leftist abhorrence of ecological mixing. That species is, of course, Homo sapiens. Leftists believe that unlimited numbers of alien human being can enter new ecosystems of culture and custom without doing any harm at all. The newcomers won’t trigger ecocide. On the contrary, they’ll introduce enrichment. But this bio-transfer is good only when it involves non-White humans migrating into the White West. Non-Whites enrich and enhance, bringing only blessings and benefits to stale pale societies like Britain, America and France. That’s what leftists believe. They’re wrong, of course. There are very obvious parallels between the harm done by introduced animals and the harm done by introduced humans. A biologist like Richard Dawkins should have seen those parallels long ago and begun campaigning against migration from the Third World. Dawkins should also have seen the danger of disturbing the cultural ecosystems of Western society from within. This is one of the clever and illuminating analogies he uses to instruct his readers about biology and genetics:

As for the all-important interactions between genes in influencing phenotype, here’s a better metaphor than the butcher’s map. A large sheet hangs from the ceiling, suspended from hooks by hundreds of strings attached to different places all over the sheet. It may help the analogy to consider the strings as elastic. The strings don’t hang vertically and independently. Instead, they can run diagonally or in any direction, and they interfere with other strings by cross-links rather than necessarily going straight to the sheet itself. The sheet takes on a bumpy shape, because of the interacting tensions in the tangled cat’s-cradle of hundreds of strings. As you’ve guessed, the shape of the sheet represents the phenotype, the body of the animal. The genes are represented by tensions in the strings at the hooks in the ceiling. A mutation is either a tug towards the hook or a release, perhaps even a severing of the string at the hook. And, of course, the point of the parable is that a mutation at any one hook affects the whole balance of tensions across the tangle of strings. Alter the tension at any one hook, and the shape of the whole sheet shifts. (pp. 189-90; Dawkins’ emphases)

Dawkins’ analogy obviously applies not just to phenotypes but also to ecosystems and to societies. Dawkins himself created the idea of cultural genes or memes, which evolve and interact, survive or go extinct. And he wants to drive one set of memes, one memeplex, into extinction. It’s the memeplex for belief in God and religion. But by his own analogy, that would be a reckless and irresponsible thing to do. As he points out: if you alter the tensions in the strings, “the shape of the whole sheet shifts.” And in unpredictable ways that are much more likely to be harmful than beneficial.[3] By attacking Christianity, something that has been central to Western culture for millennia, Dawkins and other atheists were trying to cut a whole set of strings. At the same time, they didn’t object as a whole new set of strings — those for Islam — were attached to the sheet. These staunch supporters of science, fully aware of the complexity and delicacy of biological systems, were quite happy for the sheet of Western society to be brutally tugged and twisted into radically different shapes.

Mea maxima culpa

In other words, those bio-literate atheists were idiots. But Dawkins, for one, has started to glimpse the size of his idiocy. He has said that he’s a “cultural Christian” and that he prefers the sound of church bells to the “aggressive-sounding” Muslim call to prayer. After he expressed that preference, he was immediately accused of Islamophobia. I share the preference and I have to confess my own idiocy. When I accepted Dawkins’ version of atheism, I too looked forward eagerly to the extinction of Christianity. And I too ignored the encroachment of Islam. I wasn’t as bio-literate as Richard Dawkins, but I should have seen the parallels between biology and society, between importing predatory animals and importing predatory ideologies. And I should have asked how much things like science, which I did value, owed to things like Christianity, which I didn’t value at all. Nowadays, I’m still unsure how valuable Christianity is. How valuable true Christianity is, I mean, not the traitorous parody of Christianity that currently does the Devil’s work all over the West. That parody of Christianity should — and will — be driven into extinction, but atheists like Richard Dawkins and Salman Rushdie won’t like what replaces it.

And they won’t like the civil wars that will soon erupt all over the West. Nor will the great ironist Salman Rushdie recognize the irony of those civil wars. His bad books have explored the end of the British Raj, when the strings of Western imperialism were cut and the sheet of Indian society shifted sharply into new shapes. They were shapes of civil war, of inter-communal massacre and ethnic cleansing. The bad writer Salman Rushdie, knowing all that history, has worked all his life to reproduce it in the West. So, in his own way, has the good writer Richard Dawkins. Separated by skin-color, culture and the quality of their writing, they’ve been united by the idiocy and arrogance of their atheism. For a good analysis of where that idiocy and arrogance will soon take the West, I can recommend some new posts by a writer called El Inglés at Gates of Vienna. He’s writing for Whites in Britain, but his words apply to Whites everywhere else:

If you are a British man or woman, with a family, living in or close to a part of Birmingham, or London, or Bradford that is likely to be caught up in communal violence, you deserve to know what might be heading your way. Making a hard decision in advance might allow you to save your family, your wealth, your health, your sanity. The government and its various satellites will always insist everything is under control. Do you trust them?

I do not want British people to end up in this situation. Forewarned is forearmed, and it is in this spirit that I offer the only publicly-available, open-source analysis of this subject matter that is ever likely to be made available to them. And who knows — by openly analysing that which cannot be mentioned in polite circles, this document may yet compel official institutions to quietly model those same unspeakable futures. (“Crown, Crescent, Pitchfork: Part One,” Gates of Vienna, 6th July 2025)

[1]  Ivan Turtak and his two fellow rapists are described as “Slovakian” in newspaper reports, but I think they’re Gypsies.

[2]  But the island has struck back, because New Zealand has exported harmful species of its own, like the New Zealand flatworm and pigmyweed.

[3]  As Dawkins often points out in his books, there are far more ways to damage a functional system like an engine or genotype than to improve it.

The UK Has Voted to Allow Anti-Social, Woke Women to End Their Bloodlines. Rejoice!

/10 Comments/in , /by

On 17th June 2025, after almost no debate whatsoever because it was merely a proposed amendment to a broader crime bill, the British parliament voted for the most liberal abortion laws in the world by a large majority. Even though abortion is only legal up to 24 weeks gestation, under this law women will not be prosecuted for ending their pregnancies, even if they are 9 months pregnant. Indeed, the baby may be late and, thus, normally already born at its level of gestation.

Apparently, the UK has been prosecuting women who are already very upset and vulnerable and such women should be above the law because of their “feelings.” The feelings of the mother come first, due to a number of prosecutions that have upset left-wing MPs, mainly female ones. For example, one woman, during Lockdown, told the doctor she was 6 weeks pregnant and obtained abortion pills. In reality, she was 26 weeks pregnant. She was prosecuted and was, inexplicably, found Not Guilty, even though she went to hospital and dishonestly claimed she’d had a late-term miscarriage rather than a still born induced by the pills.

A number of conservative UK commentators have remarked that this is, basically, legalised infanticide. Even left-wing firebrand George Galloway has tweeted that it marks the UK’s descent into Sodom. The British are now the Phoenicians, some have remarked, sacrificing their infants to Maloch.

I am sympathetic to these ideas. Naturally, the MP who proposed the bill was an extremely ugly woman; I mean literally circus ugly. From some photos, you’d genuinely think Tonia Antoniazzi was a man, while in others she is more like a fairy tale witch; vile both inside and out. I suspect that she is high in mutational load. This would explain both her physical repellence and her extreme left-wing and very low-empathy views. After all, as I have shown in my book Woke Eugenics, under pre-Industrial, harsh Darwinian conditions we were selecting for a Fitness Factor that included genetic mental health, physical health (a poor immune system means you won’t produce a symmetrical phenotype), and general conservatism, as this is associated with altruism, being pro-social and being group-oriented, vital under conditions of harsh group selection.

Tonia Antoniazzi

A variety of studies have shown, unsurprisingly, that on many markers left-wing people are genetically sick: more likely to be sickly children, uglier, shorter, more often mentally ill (especially high in anxiety and depression), and more likely to have Cluster B personality disorders such as Narcissism with its attendant low empathy. The genetic component of these kinds of psychological traits and conditions is at least 50%, based on twin studies, and in some traits it is even higher. And this leads to an interesting question. What is the psychological nature of the kinds of women that have abortions?

According to a 2014 study in Social Science and Medicine entitled “The role of stress, depression, and violence in subsequent pregnancies among women having a first abortion,” such women are high in anxiety and depression and also in emotional dysregulation. In other words, they are high in the Cluster B personality disorder known as Borderline Personality Disorder. Sufferers feel a constant sense of emptiness, intensely fear abandonment, and, centrally, are highly emotionally dysregulated. They behave like stereotypical naughty children: tantrums, attention-seeking, manipulation; anything to get what they feel they want in the moment. They are fickle, due to constant self-doubt, and prone to black and white thinking known as “splitting;” where you either love or hate the same person depending on your suddenly shifting moods. Clearly, these neurotic women are much more likely to be left-wing than conservative. These woman want abortions, and their offspring, had they lived, would very likely have been psychologically similar to themselves.

This study is line with a much earlier study, from 1992, “Personality Characteristics of Women Who Had Induced Abortions” in the journal Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change. It found that women who undergo abortion have a markedly different modal personality compared to those who do not. They score higher than controls on histrionic characteristics (dramatic attention-seeking), Narcissism (which includes low emotional empathy and low altruism) and antisocial personality (psychopathy, which also includes low emotional empathy and low altruism). So, females who have abortions, compared to controls, are likely to be unpleasant, anti-social people and these traits are significantly genetic.

They are also more likely to be left-wing. This is firstly because conservatives will be likely to eschew abortion for religious reasons or due to their higher empathy and sense of responsibility, and, secondly, because being left-wing is predicted by being mentally unstable and by having Cluster B personality disorders. This was found in the study “The Dark Triad traits predict authoritarian political correctness and alt-right attitudes” in the journal Heliyon. Leftists were high in Narcissism and Machiavellianism while the authoritarian, anti-freedom extreme right, who I’d aver are almost as bad as the far left, were high in the other Dark Triad trait, psychopathy.

But in essence, abortion involves nasty, anti-social, virtue-signalling left-wing women ending their own bloodlines in a context in which the traits involved are strongly genetic. Leftism itself is as much as 60% genetic. The law passed in the UK is, therefore, Woke Eugenics in action. It is eugenic.

Wokeness seems to be a group-level adaptation that will return deracinated, genetically sick Europeans to genetic health. Surely, the kind of women who want abortions should be allowed, nay, actively encouraged to have them. Think how selfish, nasty and unnatural you’d have to be to kill your baby at 9 months gestation, as English Law now effectively permits. And that baby will almost certainly grow up to be very like its mother. What can possibly be wrong with letting such a woman snuff-out her own bloodline?

Her offspring will not only be left-wing, and thus destructive of adaptive traditions that keep us in our evolutionary match and thus happy and safe, but, likely, criminally inclined.  The study “The Dark Triad as a predictor of criminality: Evidence from the Add Health Study” in the Journal of Criminal Justice has demonstrated this in depth. Criminal behaviour is about 60% genetic. This law will reduce criminality. Indeed, according to “The impact of legalized abortion on crime” in the Quarterly Journal of Economics the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s in America is estimated to account for approximately 50% of the observed drop in crime rates between 1991 and 1997. Specifically, the study attributes a 20–25% reduction in violent crime and a similar reduction in property crime to increased abortion access.

Put simply, this law is a leap forward in the process of Woke Eugenics and the return to sanity. Conservatives should put their sentimentality aside and rejoice as more and more deeply unpleasant people remove themselves from gene pool. Rejoice!

Do the New LA Riots Signal the Ethnic Breakup of the United States?

/13 Comments/in , /by

Serious riots broke out in Los Angeles in the second week of June 2025. Supposedly triggered by ICE agents apprehending illegal immigrants, they were, in reality, set off by their arresting extremely dangerous Hispanic criminals, quite independent of their immigration status.

Protests, effectively encouraged by Hispanic Democrat local councillors and other ethnic activists, promptly broke out; police cars were set on fire, rocks were thrown at them from bridges, and public buildings were torched. The left claimed that Trump, who sent in the National Guard to quell the disorder because the state’s Democrat governor had abjectly failed to, incited these riots by enforcing the law and, of course, made them worse by trying to quell them.

I am afraid, in a sense, the leftist media are correct, though, naturally, they don’t want to admit why they are correct. Conservative media outlets have ridiculed the way in which rioters strongly object to being returned to Mexico yet wave Mexican flags and burn the Stars and Stripes. If they think this is a contradiction, then they are misguided. They are not looking at what is happening through the correct lens: the lens of evolutionary psychology; the idea that humans are, in essence, an advanced form of ape.

With this in mind, what is happening is Los Angeles starts to make sense fairly quickly. At the most basic level, chimpanzees operate in troupes — in essence, small tribes — who are held together by relatively recent common ancestry. Numerous experiments have shown that humans and animals can discern genetic similarity and are more likely to cooperate with the genetically similar because doing so raises their “inclusive fitness;” it permits them to indirectly pass on more of their genes if their kin flourish. An ethnic group is a highly extended tribe and a race is a number of related ethnic groups; a highly extended ethnic group. Although the word “Hispanic” is confusing — it sometimes refers to people whose native language is Spanish even if they are completely White — in general it refers to people from Central and South America. They range from totally European to totally Native American. On average, however, they are a “cline” — a mixture of two races; groups genetically separated for many thousands of years — between European and Native American. As Genetic Similarity Theory predicts, they are generally sexually attracted to each other, so we have the Hispanic Cline and they are, on average, half-European and half-Native American.

Due to a combination of factors — proximity to Mexico, the fact that California was briefly part of Mexico, Woke California’s status as a “Sanctuary State” and LA’s as a “Sanctuary City” which is prepared to welcome illegal immigrants — Mexicans have, in effect, established enclaves of the Mexican Nation within Los Angeles. Returning to our discussion of chimpanzees, it is basic, in terms of evolutionary psychology, that you establish territory. The more territory you control then the more access to resources — to food of various kinds — you have and, so, the more likely are to out-compete other troupes, leading to the triumph of your genes. Also (all else being equal), the larger your group is then the more likely you are to out-compete your rivals in wars over territory.

If you are, as an individual, not at the top of your pack hierarchy in the territory that you hold, then you often gang together with other middle-ranking males and you strive outwards to take the territory, and the females, of another group; to expand your group’s territory. Naturally, if the other group returns you to your territory then you are a failure and you will fear having few resources, which, in our prehistoric polygamous mating systems in which females sexually select for status, means that you don’t pass on your genes. So, you must fight to maintain the territory you have eked out and you must fight to maintain your numbers. Trump symbolises the most warlike Europeans — the ethnic enemy of all the different ethnic groups that have come to occupy the  U.S.  So, of course, his going into “Mexican” territory is going to provoke a violent reaction.

That these rioters are patriotically Mexican but hate America and don’t want to return to Mexico is no more a contradiction than settler Americans disliking Native American tribes, not wanting to return to England, and yet seeing themselves as truest form of Anglo-Saxon. You can come up, to solve your cognitive dissonance, with reasons why your country is poor and you are relatively poor and have had to leave: God is punishing our country for its decadence, God has called me to expand his holy nation or even “We Native Americans must take the land back from the Europeans and especially California as it was once part of Mexico.” Their low average IQ will not be part of their explanation for why their country is poor.

From an evolutionary perspective, it is groups who are high in positive and negative ethnocentrism who tend to triumph. Los Angeles has been invaded, in part, because the Europeans were low in negative ethnocentrism. They were individualists who covertly played for status by signalling their concern with the marginalised and runaway virtue-signalling led to their favouring foreigners over their own. They identify with the genetically dissimilar as this allows them to collaborate better with foreigners and treasonously gain power over their own people, as the California governor has. Typically leftist, they are high in Neuroticism and so, bubbling with resentment, they want to see everything which symbolises power — for which they are so ravenous — torn down.

So, Los Angeles becomes a sanctuary city and Mexicans are more likely to take it over if they feel love for their own people and despise the Europeans: hence, they wave Mexican flags and burn American ones, despite not wanting to return to Mexico. Those who see this as a contradiction are missing the point. They must examine the situation via evolutionary psychology.

I suspect that what is happening in Los Angeles is a harbinger of the future: the South Africanization of the United States; its violent break up along ethnic lines as non-Europeans carve out more and more territory.

 

Academic Study on Woke Mental Instability Retracted By Major Journal . . . Because it Hurt Woke People’s Feelings

/3 Comments/in , /by

It’s quite incredible how brazenly anti-scientific Woke academia — that is to say, basically, academia — is. It’s got to the point of being comical. A study proving that Woke people are mentally unstable has been retracted by a major psychology journal because Woke people, being mentally unstable, were upset by it and felt that it used judgemental language about them; that is scientifically neutral language such as “mentally unstable” and “high mutational load.”

Last summer, the Danish independent scientist Emil Kirkegaard and I had a study proving that Woke people are more mentally unstable than controls accepted in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. The rather technical piece, entitled “Do Conservatives Really Have an Advantage in Mental Health? An Examination of Measurement Invariance” was accepted after two rounds of double-blind review, in which the manuscript in reviewed by anonymous experts. In the period between acceptance — when it was placed on the journal’s website — and formal publication, it quickly became the ninth most viewed article in the journal’s history.

This was a problem for Woke activists, naturally, because they tend to be Narcissistic and the study confronted them with what they are and did so very directly. It examined an earlier study which had applied a “Woke Scale” — a series of questions to discern levels of Wokeness — to 4,978 Finnish adults. Kirkegaard and I wanted to discover whether this scale displayed “measurement bias.” For example, one question was: “If white people have on average a higher level of income than black people, it is because of racism.” The original author correlated how you answered with your answers to questions about mental health. The problem is that measures of mental health may work differently on those of high or low levels of Wokeness. In other words, the fact of being anti-Woke, for example, may impact how you answer a question about mental health, meaning that the scale is not “measurement invariant.” We found that the scale was measurement invariant. It was genuinely measuring what was going on. The correlation between Wokeness and mental health was -0.41 and the relationship between Wokeness and anxiety was 0.36. Drawing upon the earlier author’s data, we also found that voters for a give Finnish political party become more mentally ill, in a linear fashion, the more Woke that party’s policies are.

The peer-reviewers asked us to expand our “Discussion” section, to look in more depth at why this might be the case. We presented the theory that it might be significantly for genetic reasons, and presented data to back up these claims: We are evolved to be group-oriented, but Darwinian selection pressures have collapsed since the Industrial Revolution, and so a significant component of the Woke are high in mutational load. This is congruent with their being, on average, both mentally and physically unhealthy, and they display various specific markers of mutation. For example, they tend to have older fathers, and older fathers have more de novo mutations on their sperm. It should be stressed that we only included these issues because the peer-reviewers asked us to. They then reviewed what we had done and recommended publication.

However, on 21st February we were informed by the publisher of the journal (published by Wiley and Sons) that “concerns had been raised” and this study had led to a “post-publication peer-review” — despite the fact that peer-review in science is supposed to be sacrosanct — with the conclusion that there were “major errors” in the article and that they must retract it.

This was a total lie. The new reviews constituted, at best, a series of minor criticisms that — were our article not about Wokeness — would have been addressed in a response piece to which we would have been allowed a right of reply. Their main issues were, in essence, what they called “normatively biased language” and, for one of the reviewers, being unethical by citing “white supremacy advocacy,” though it was unclear which of our purely academic citations fell into this category. Kirkegaard wrote about what happened on his blog “Emil Kirkegaard Things,” and a commenter noted, “Second reviewer clearly used AI. I pasted the “Conflation of Religiosity and Spirituality” section into https://undetectable.ai/ and they said it was 1% human.” So much for ethics! The reviewers also noted a problem with the Wokeness items coding, because we used 32 items, but the scale only has 26 items. However, this reflected issues with the study that we were drawing upon.

Nevertheless, we re-did the analysis in light of this very minor concern and the correlation between anxiety and Wokeness simply increased from 0.36 to 0.37. In essence, they didn’t like the discussion section and this was because it averred that Woke people had a tendency to be mentally ill for genetic reasons and conservatives had a tendency to be the opposite. They claimed it was biased because environmental considerations weren’t explored, but this is never normally a reason to retract a study. Moreover, our study drew upon studies to justify why the environmental view is less parsimonious than the genetic one. Studies that looked at purely environmental explanations do not get retracted, even though they are empirically wrong, and nor do those that portray conservatives in a negative light.

Ironically, then, the forced retraction of our study substantiated completely what it argued: Woke people are mentally unstable, on average. They cope with this be adopting a Narcissistic false self, so that they can feel superior — we literally said this in the Discussion and the new reviewers criticised us for doing so. If you question their false self, such as by proving how mentally ill and high in mutational load they are, they react with Narcissistic Rage and try to destroy you.

Narcissism strongly correlates with Machiavellianism. Having a piece like this in a mainstream psychology journal means they feel you have power over them. They also assume that you’re motivated by power, rather than truth, because that’s true of them. So, the piece must be retracted; you must be symbolically disempowered . . .

But, of course, this completely proves our point and has no bearing on the accuracy — the truth — of the study. Woke Academia is so frightened of the truth that they will retract, on spurious grounds, a major journal’s ninth most read article of all time, one whose results are not in doubt. And why have they retracted it? Because it’s hurt their feelings. And they feel negative feelings very strongly, just as the article proved.

Mentally Unstable Democrat Politician Sterilises Herself to Gain Attention and Praise

/7 Comments/in , /by

Someone got in touch with me last week to tell me that every prediction I’d made in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism had come true. The reason? A fertile, female, Democrat member of the Michigan House of Representatives had announced that she had sterilised herself in response to Donald Trump being re-elected as president.

The Narcissistic Laurie Pohutsky Posing with Her Favourite Colors

‘My argument in Woke Eugenics was that mutants have taken over Western culture and duly push people in a maladaptive direction. This acts as selection pressure in favour of those who are genetically conservative, meaning that they, and their healthy genes, will be the future. However, the death cult of Woke — where you must resign from the gene pool for the sake of the environment, for example — will also suck in certain psychological types who may be only slightly mutated.

This is what we are seeing with Laurie Pohutsky, the Michigan House of Representatives’ member for the 17th District. Her sterilisation in itself, however, is not an example of “Woke Eugenics” in action. That is exemplified in the fact that, despite being married, she is childless at 36. The sterilisation is indicative, instead, of the kind of personality type that gets sucked into extreme Wokeness.

Laurie Pohutsky, who has strongly campaigned in favour of “Trans Rights” including that the school shouldn’t have to tell parents if their child changes its “gender identity,” announced at a rally on the steps of Michigan state capitol that: “I underwent surgery to ensure that I never have to navigate a pregnancy in Donald Trump’s America.” She claimed to have done this because Trump’s election meant that she was, consequently, uncertain about whether she’d be able to access contraception in the future. I don’t think there’s any question of Republicans banning condoms, the coil or the pill, so we can only assume that “contraception” is a euphemism for “abortion.” It, perhaps, says rather a lot about Pohusky’s attitude to human life that she should, on some level, regard abortion as a form of contraception.

It’s also rather hysterical. When the federal right to abortion was over-turned, the State of Michigan immediately passed a law guaranteeing access to abortion. Pohutsky seems to hold to the paranoid belief that Trump will somehow pass a nationwide ban on abortion. I find it hard to accept that she genuinely believes this. Moreover, Trump will only be president for four years, so why get sterilised at all? The implication is that she is convinced that Trump will institute some kind of, from her perspective, “extreme right-wing dictatorship.”

But, in a sense, this is all irrelevant. Pohutsky is married and is 36 years-old. Realistically, if she was going to have children, if she wanted to have children, she’d have had them by now. Her husband, who is also a political activist, has publicly supported what she’s done. Clearly, he’s not too fussed about having children either. Laurie Pohutsky is also openly bisexual. Indeed, she told reporters that she and her husband, who are both extremely busy with all manner of left-wing campaigning, had decided against having children.

Pohutsky’s Husband, Nathan Triplett, President of the Michigan ACLU.
[Pohutsky:] “I said, ‘I’m sorry, I guess maybe I should have not said this.’”
[Triplett:] “He stopped me, and he said, ‘No, you said exactly what you needed to say. I know why you said it.’”

It is this decision, therefore, that is the example of “Woke Eugenics,” not Pohutsky’s actual sterilisation. Having imbibed the feminist idea that males and females are somehow equal and must both work, she has placed her career well above passing on her genes. Having absorbed the Woke idea that conservatives will destroy the various “marginalised” minorities with whom she identifies, she has put political campaigning above replicating herself. Being hyper-individualistic and self-centred, as we will see, she probably lacks the desire to nurture a baby. They do, after all, make you think about somebody other than yourself. Being highly mentally unstable and so regarding herself as “marginalised,” she identifies with other “marginalised” groups and puts fighting for them above passing on her genes.

Why? Studies have indicated that the moral circle of leftists is very different from that of conservatives. On average, conservatives are group-oriented — they care about the genetic groups to which they belong — so the world becomes a series of circles around self. You love your family more than your kin, your kin more than your ethny, your ethny more than your race, your race more than species, and so on.

And Pohutsky is not alone:

While Republican colleagues of Ms Pohutsky’s in the Michigan legislature have posted snarky comments about her online, several women have reached out in the past 24 hours “sort of relieved to hear somebody else say what they had felt… and what had led them to make their decision around, you know, a surgical option.”

“I was hoping that if there were people who were concerned or sort of on the fence or, you know, just hadn’t heard anybody say, yes, ‘I’ve been there too. This is okay for you to make this decision.’”

Some of those women said they were now calling their doctors to book their own sterilisation.

“So I guess in that regard, it did what I wanted it to do.”

But even for those who do decide to permanently render themselves infertile, finding an appointment may not be easy.

One woman told her that she was unable to book a consultation as “so many people are trying” after Mr Trump’s victory.

Liberals combine being mentally unstable with being individualists; they are adapted to an unpredictable environment in which they are out for themselves. Being Neurotic (high in negative feelings), they fear a fair fight, so they virtue-signal their supposed kindness in order to manipulate their way into power over their group, which they wish to control because they are paranoid. They identify, in terms of their moral circle, with people who are genetically distant from self. This identification allows them to collaborate with outsiders in order to attain power over their own group. Thus, Democrat Whites will care more about Blacks than about other Whites.

It is this underlying mental instability which gives us the real insight into Pohutsky’s psychology. One of the ways you deal with being Neurotic is to adopt a Narcissistic “false self” in which tell yourself that you are perfect, unique and, of course, you are entitled. This latter trait reflects the low Agreeableness that is found in both Narcissism and leftism. In an unstable ecology, you could be wiped out at any time; co-operation may not be repaid.  Studies that I explore in Woke Eugenics have shown that Narcissism is correlated with being Woke. You crave Narcissistic supply — being told that you really are wonderful. How do you get this? In a leftist culture, you competitively signal how left-wing you are and people praise you accordingly. This runaway Wokeness can reach a point, naturally, where you declare your commitment in very extreme ways, such as stating, “I will leave America” or “I will sterilise myself.” This Woke ostentatiousness also reassures you, to yourself, that you really are morally superior and just plain perfect.

Of course, if one digs beneath the surface, such declarations are often hollow. The Hollywood actress does not actually move abroad, or, if she does, it’s not very difficult for her because she’s extremely rich and likely has property around the world. The Democrat politician, who has presumably been successfully using contraception throughout her marriage, likely has more money stashed away than if she had children, and she had decided not to have children anyway, so the sterilisation is purely symbolic. In reality, with Pohutsky, what we are seeing is something closely related to Narcissism; Histrionic Personality Disorder. Such people, usually women (80% of sufferers are female), are theatrical, flirtatious, have an excessive need for attention and have a profound desire for approval.

The headline about Pohutsky in the UK’s Daily Telegraph was “I’m a Democrat politician. This is why I sterilised myself after Trump’s election.” Such a headline simply plays into her Histrionic Narcissism. A more accurate headline would be “Histrionic Narcissistic Democrat, Who Doesn’t Want Children Anyway, Sterilises Herself to Gain Attention and Narcissistic Reinforcement.” But, certainly, her resignation from the gene pool, quite independent of the vain sterilisation, would be a prime example of “Woke Eugenics.” Liberals are born traitors and are (relative to conservatives) mentally and physically ill, liberalism is significantly genetic, and liberals are gradually removing themselves from the gene pool. . . . Let us not stand in their way.

Oh, What a Lovely War!

/17 Comments/in , /by

It is important not to be romanticise war. Most people my age (I was born in 1980) had at least one grandfather who fought in World War II. When I was a child, I relished my grandfather telling me “war stories” of his time in Libya, Greece and Italy. But these were obviously highly sanitised. Once, when I was about 16 and we were watching a very realistic war film about the Normandy Landings, I looked over to him. His eyes were lachrymose and he was completely hypnotised by it. Obviously, there was a terrible side to the War which he had never discussed with me.

So, I do not say it lightly when I repeat the cliché that “What we need is a good war.” We need a good war because evolutionary psychology — in essence, the study of humans as an advanced form of ape with in-built adaptive drives — predicts that we need a good war. We are, I suggest, adapted to have a serious war every one hundred years or so. If we don’t have one, then we reach the situation that the West has now reached: polarisation, ethno-suicide, supreme decadence (including an invincibility complex with regard to war), maladaptive behaviour, and a general sense of dysphoria and ennui.

Before looking at the broader evolutionary mechanisms behind why we are adapted to have a massive war every century, let us look at what a war achieves.

In the absence of harsh selection pressures to be group-oriented, we can expect people to deviate more and more from the evolutionarily adaptive norm which, as I have shown in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, is to be conservative and traditionally religious: These strongly genetic traits are correlated with strongly genetic mental and physical health. As this deviation increases, you will get a society that is more and more genetically and mentally diverse, more and more polarised and, generally, less and less cooperative. After a certain tipping point, the deviants may even hijack the culture — as they now have — and push people along a maladaptive roadmap of life. A war forces us to unite or die, it pushes us down Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, it makes us less concerned about decadent things (like feelings and being validated); it halts the descent into insanity.

It is also an example of mortality salience; of closeness to death. This is our “evolutionary match” — we are adapted to an ecology where child mortality was as high as 50% — so death induces our instincts, which tend to be adaptive. These include religiosity, which gives us a sense of eternal meaning and tends to sanctify that which is adaptive as the will of God, and group-orientation, essentially conservatism. In other words, we become higher in positive and negative ethnocentrism when we are exposed to mortality. It also increases our desire to have children; hence the documented post-War baby-booms. A war reverses the slide towards leftism which seems to be inevitable, as conservatives are concerned with all 5 moral foundations — in-group loyalty, obedience to authority and sanctity (group-oriented) and equality and harm avoidance (individually-oriented) — whereas the left only care about the individually-oriented ones. This asymmetric empathy means that conservatives continuously cede ground to liberals. A war means that balance is restored.

According to the book Fourth Turning, such a massive war and economic collapse seems to happen every four generations; approximately every eighty years. It may be that there is a sense in which mortality salience remains vivid for as long as there is a generation alive that knew serious mortality salience: they pass on stories about it and behave in response to it. Once this generation dies out — as has the War generation in the West — then mortality salience has completely collapsed. Thus, the reset it required or we are overwhelmed by decadence and dysphoria

That reset should’ve occurred in about 2007, with the economic collapse akin to that of 1929. But we were so wealthy, our resources so abundant, that were able to avoid, or at least postpone, the normal consequences of such a massive economic bust. Multiple lines of research indicate that a war should’ve occurred at this point. Peter Turchin’s 2016 book, Ages of Discord, predicts, based on various markers such as “elite-over-promotion” (too many qualified people for too few places), that there should have been a war around 2020. Finnish scholar Jani Miettinen has advanced a model whereby humans, like animals, change in the average presence of certain hormones — such as testosterone and oxytocin — across four generations. This renders them slightly different in behaviour and size across generations, making them less easily predictable from the perspective of predator and prey, meaning the process is adaptive. When the high testosterone generation gets into power, we have a collapse, a war and a reset. This should already have taken place but it hasn’t, presumably due to our unprecedented resources.

This has two consequences: runaway individualism, until men can be women because they say they are and you can’t disagree as it might hurt their feelings, and a growing portion of the population who have a sense that everything is meaningless. And, of course, society is increasingly polarised and unpleasant.

Hence, it may be that, at the group level, humans are literally evolved to have a massive war every four generations. It is this that keeps them group-oriented, and thus adaptive (as computer-models show that ethnocentric groups defeat and dominate their rivals on average), across time. The attendant economic collapse, under harsher conditions, is also likely to ensure genetic health across time. Over four generations without war, genetic mutations will have accrued, with genetic poor health being associated with liberalism. With a collapse into harsher conditions, these mutants will be purged and group mental and physical health will be restored.

Generation Z do not have grandfathers who fought in a War. When they were born, the country was run by Boomers who had never known any serious mortality salience. This wouldn’t have mattered if the economy had collapsed in 2007, resulting in war a decade later. But it didn’t. This is why we have reached the dysphoria and insanity that we have. The children need some new war stories and for that we need a new war.