Comments on: “Blood is their Argument”

By: nickX

nickX — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:42:17 +0000

I strongly endorse this. _The Extended Phenotype_ is very highly recommended reading for those interested in the Darwinian side of the neoreaction. It describes some of the most important topics of _The Selfish Gene_ in greater depth, and reflects Dawkins’ own research more than any other of his books. And his research was starting to darkly enlighten biology in ways even the contemporary HBD movement can hardly imagine. Green beard effects, our bodies and minds under the control of genes other than our own…more disturbing than Lovecreft even if it had been just fiction and all the more disturbing for being cutting-edge biology. He stared into the abyss and retreated. It was a very big loss for civilization when he abandoned his own research in order to start shooting creationist fish in a barrel. Imagine if Einstein had abandoned his theoretical work in physics in 1904 in order to debate people who still believed the earth is the center of the universe. Something of a similar magnitude may have occurred with Dawkins.

By: “In the Blood”: Zombis, Zombies and Race (I) | Zombi Diaspora

“In the Blood”: Zombis, Zombies and Race (I) | Zombi Diaspora — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:47:40 +0000

[…] summarizing the “Blood is their Argument” thread, a rather illustrious group of scientists associated with the so-called HDB (Human […]

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:01:57 +0000

Most… to most. I mean if religion was maladaptive, it would have largely disappeared from the “genome”. If religion were irrelevant to adaptive success, then various religions would be uncorrelated, and it would be less widespread in the genome… but they’re not uncorrelated and they’re very widespread. Ergo, religions (on net) advance adaptive fitness… even if we don’t (yet) understand why or how… But Dawkins is at war, more or less, with all traditional religions, and only tolerates ones that have evolved within the last 100 years or so. Basically, that religion is Progressivism, and Dawkins himself is a believer in it. Surprise, surprise.

By: Anomaly UK

Anomaly UK — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:11:17 +0000

Which religion, to which culture? He comes from an elite culture which hasn’t been seriously religious for centuries. If he ignored culture and went back to science, I would be more than happy. The establishment seriously dislikes his science.

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:43:21 +0000

When Dawkins acknowledges the net benefits of religion to society and culture, then… maybe… he might be working generally against the left zeitgeist at least a little.

By: Scharlach

Scharlach — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:49:13 +0000

There are degrees of commitment to Leftism, just as there are degrees of commitment to the Dark Enlightenment. Dawkins won’t be joining UKIP any time soon, but that doesn’t mean he’s a fully committed Leftist, like Gould. It’s enough, in my mind, that he’s standing against the tide of ever-leftward movement in the intellectual realm. He, and others like him, are providing a base from which to move in the other direction, even if they don’t move in that direction themselves.

By: dan

dan — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:37:40 +0000

Admin wrote “Would it even matter?”

I think dissent is terribly important.

I remember a friend of mine said some things about tendencies of blacks years ago (I was recently out of college) that were true but not PC. I called him a racist instantly and reflexively (yup), but meanwhile my mind was spinning fast because he is a good guy and I came to acknowledge some bitter truths quietly to myself. I have not called anyone a racist since. We are still friends.

I guarantee that many howls of dissent regarding Richwine were from people experiencing worldview-shattering cognitive dissonance and who really will not be the same now that scales are removed from their eyes.

The thing about truth is that once you’ve really gotten it, you have taken a one-way trip. When it happens, you acknowlege nothing and say nothing. That is exactly it. Your enthusiasm to be a tool for progressivism is gone and the wind is out of your sails.

On some level, if the only thing that comes of this dissent is that in the dark night of their souls a number of progressive realize that the thing cannot work, isn’t working, that is very satisfying for me. While the left breaks the right on a wheel of political defeat, the left breaks itself on the wheel of nature.

To paraphrase Carlisle, capturing control of the ship is not a prize but a burden when you must steer around a deadly Cape and the rules of the sea are rules you have no control over.

America has been such a beautiful ship in the past and the new owners are laboring frantically, with all the wrong navigation rules.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:03:56 +0000

Very persuasive — but a little too generous to Dawkins perhaps. He has embraced ridiculous ‘naturalistic fallacy’ arguments in the realm of moral and political affairs which are entirely incompatible with intellectual integrity given his basic framework of beliefs.

By: Orlandu84

Orlandu84 — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:20:28 +0000

I just wanted to say thank you for the information regarding “The Extended Phenotype.” I had never heard of the book or Dawkin’s concept of the phenotype. Time to go read “How Dawkins got pwned” and add “The Extended Phenotype” to my reading list.

By: J

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:46:05 +0000

That should be chapter 12, “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”.