One of the great things about the Internet is that it is an equal playing field for information.
The vomitous mainstream media and their far left troll buddies in government media hate this and do their level best (which admittedly is pretty good) to control content. But like a slippery octopus the truth still comes out via a variety of good players, like the XYZ. And like Professor Edward Dutton, whose podcast The Jolly Heretic is rather jolly good.
One of Professor Dutton’s interest is the way in which genetics changes over time in populations and the way in which genetic fitness is a factor in nations rising and falling. Dutton notes that successful populations tend to be of a certain type of character; they are highly moral and religious, they have a strong nationalistic belief, they are intolerant of deviancy, they have strong physical capacity, they have defined roles for the sexes which requires men to defend the nation and women to help build the nation. These are the conquering people that crashed out of Arabia, Mongolia, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, England and the like. An irresistible flood that swept powerful nations before them like splintered trees in a tsunami.
They had strong national identities, they rightly identified others as inferior and effete, they had religions intolerant of those who were not pure before their god.
Dutton makes the convincing argument that these cultural traits interrelate and are reinforced by genetics. For example people who raise stable households are the same people that choose to stay with their partner rather than leave them when they see more tempting fields elsewhere. This means children of people who live in stable households tend to have children who survive and pass on their genes than those who are feckless.
Religion helps in this process by actively setting bounds such as not coveting your neighbour’s wife and staying true to the marriage through sickness and in health.
Strong nationalistic communities where the elites see their fate reflected in the flourishing of their own people again encourage mortality to be lower. A considerate aristocrat who allows his peasants to thrive because he sees himself as one of them is likely to have a growing community, whereas the aristrocrat who strips his people bare will in the end have an economically poor (and rebellious) peasantry. And have to waste resources investing in protection to boot.
Men who do not work hard or who are effete or soft or drunkards, will not get wives and will not spread their genetic material very far.
You can see the sense of how a community with these attributes will grow and thrive and produce happiness, whereas one that encourages laziness, deviancy, income without work or children to be born from absent fathers will not.
Dutton notes that due to the above forces and due to good old fashioned natural selection, especially if combined with a righteous religion, a martial organisation and a technological edge, the spread of the genetically able tended to occur and the genetically incapable tended to be discouraged.
Via the above processes, Dutton notes, populations in successful parts of the world from the medieval world onwards, while being subject to disease and the seasons, were often religious, nationalistic, moral, highly aggressive and genetically high quality.
As a short aside on genetics, without getting too much out of my depth, good genes have attributes that are both visible and not. Good genetics show in symmetry of form, which means someone’s genes have caused both halves of the body to be replicated perfectly, they have proportions that are mathematically describable (the Greeks called it ‘the Golden Ratio’ and used it in their statuary). They also have a measurably higher IQ (adjusting for education, ie even stupid people can be taught to pass tests if primed enough), they tend to be right handed, have ratios in the proportion of their fingers, they will be more resistant to disease, more athletic etc. At a macro level this shows up in the number of world changing inventions, the growth and influence of countries, educational capability etc that a population has.
While there are complicating factors (for example people with genius personality often have traits of eccentricity but are valued due to their abilities and therefore often also contribute to the gene pool) in essence they are a better genetic product and inherently you know it when you see it. If you want a quick and dirty way of working it out, ask yourself whom do you really want to have sex with when you are not drunk.
The flipside of this unfortunately is that genetically substandard populations result when the opposite practices are followed.
If you allow men to dump children on woman and walk, people to view sex as simply pleasure and not (at least partly) for the purposes of creating stable families, religions not to emphasise morality as a strict requirement with strict definitions, people with deviate tendencies to be viewed as normal and elites to be contemptuous of their fellow citizens (think inner city types describing bogans, rednecks and deplorables) your society tends to genetically break down. A lot of average people tend to get their end in who should not be making a genetic contribution and a lot of genetically sound people tend to put off kids entirely as they become rich enough to not require the support of the family unit and go it alone.
This genetic breakdown is supercharged by factors such as mass immigration (breaking down nationalistic bonds), elites separating themselves into segregated schools, suburbs and health systems, government policies that tolerate and enforce deviancy, and propagandistic left-run education systems.
The result is you have a lot more people who are dumb and need support. The more cunning of them become pretty good at demanding it and invent philosophies that actually state its their right to be supported. These philosophies spawn parties of spiteful mutants (as Dutton calls them) pushing their interests and using the power of government to take the wealth of the more capable as a right, rather than be given wealth as a duty in the support of the deserving (read capable) poor. Think of a Sarah Hansen-Young constantly scouting around to find complaining mendicants she can classify as diverse and discriminated against (read defective and justifiably marginalised by society).
One thing that really struck me when I was at uni and saw the tables staffed by socialists at orientation week is how inept they were. They seemed to have the emotional intelligence of a cockroach; they parroted hatred of ‘the system’ (without querying why it had delivered free uni, health, education etc or to be honest even being able to define what ‘the system’ was), they offered overseas countries as exemplary models that were universally recognised as shit places to live, and they knew nothing about pretty basic things such as how resources would be allocated. However what made me run from them the most (and like most young people the idea that rich people should give more of what they have to poor people like me was rather attractive) is that so many of them looked odd in the way they dressed and were remarkably ugly. There were lots of skinnier than normal, hunched over males with severe acne and straggly hair and very small, hyper fat women with pink hair. They felt somehow defective.
This is no coincidence. Left wing people are literally spiteful mutants who wish to take the resources from the more genetically capable as their primary survival strategy. Their fat, flaccid bodies line the front benches of sociology classes, thinking that they are clever uni students when in reality they do not have the brains to do any subject where they are not fed the answers. Their angry male pimpled faces glare out from behind black bandanna’s screaming abuse at the institutions that the genetically capable set up to reproduce the handing on of knowledge and timeless principles for success. They aim to tear down institutions create beautiful and inspiring art and maintain the religious principles required for god’s children to thrive, that reward success in the capable and punish failure in the defective.
These are the spiteful mutants of Cain who desire the approval that God has given Abel but are not worthy. Leftists are spiteful mutants, they really are.