Do Genes Determine Happiness

Sluthate.com found out who the internet meme "Greensboro Jock" was and how he became a multimillionare business man married with kids:

Peppers wrote:

Just lol that this former Jock that injected roids at 18 ended up making it to Alpha status. You couldn't of scripted it would end up like this. This is surreal and a true sluthate fairytale story. The irony. The coping of nerds that they believe "Dumb Jocks end up working for them at 40" totally blown out of the water. Popular, athletic and liked at 18 = the tracks for success in life being made. Genetic trash framecel pubertycel manlet with a weak face, unpopular, unathletic at 18 = the tracks for life success broken and require years of repair and will always remain unstable due to bad memories.

PJGoodwater wrote:

lol seriously. Success in the business corporate world is all about CONNECTIONS, NETWORKING, getting people to like you and making them think you are the right person for the job/promotion regardless of actual skill set. As an incel your only real hope of getting rich like Gould is to pull a Cuckerburg and program some shit that everyone will use.

Otherwise as an incel you will be doing all the actual work for executive Chads while they go out to eat with clients at fancy restaurants and making deals face to face with important people. If you aren't charismatic and can get people to side with you, you will never succeed in corporate America, regardless of how hard you work

HBD Wimp-Centered View of History

HBD Wimp-Centered View of History - Monday 29 Dec 2014

Bronze Age Pervert:

Heartiste has some good tendencies but someone eventually will have to address the cuckold/wimp-centered view of history you see in so many HBD (human biodiversity) writers like Peter Frost, Steve Sailer, and probably Greg Cochran. These are IT guys who have strong resentments of physicality and a weird relationship toward manliness (they all lack it, but where Frost seems to resent it, Sailer has some strangely erotic appreciation...still foreign though). They want to make the case that the white race or Western civilization is great because white men have evolved to be less masculine, more docile/tame, altruistic, cooperative, and possessing the sort of intelligence to do IT work or sit through an IQ test or do book-keeping.

Thus the great founders of Western civilization are not the geniuses, explorers, conquistadors, generals, etc., but the quiet, dependable, beta nerd, who is supposed to have existed in 17th C as well in the form of a craftsman or scientist or something like this (which is inaccurate; a shopkeeper would be the correct analogy, but they won't admit that). You'd call it self-serving, but in fact it's all they know...they are this way themselves, they know very little history or about the variety in regimes and cultures within Europe, and the most vivid dangers or alternatives they see are blacks on one hand and Chinese on the other. This explains nearly all their sexual neuroses and concerns and their model for evolution and for European history.

That it's a retarded view that can be disproven with consideration of a few historical facts--for example that blacks are the most reliably docile group, have been slaves to every civilization that has come in touch with them, have been recognized as good and submissive slaves, and have been recognized to prosper under slavery; or that Nordics have never been seen either as altruistic or docile by other peoples--won't change anything because unfortunately "HBD" the way it's conceived of right now is meant to fulfill some psychological or political function. And the carriers of HBD are the carriers of "game," which is largely an IT community as far as I can tell, and motivated by the same impulses. That some of these impulses may be understandable and excusable is one thing, but you can't let the male equivalent of Starr decide that the essence of Western history is "kindness to puppies."

popfop:

HBD is identity politics for white collar meritocrats and normcore bloggers. The ideal society for them would be the postwar United States especially in regards to its technocratic elements (i.e. companies like MITRE which work with the US military as well as the private sector). These are people from the aspirational middle classes who primarily work in STEM, business or financial services and as such consider themselves productive members of the system. They see the current decline of the West as something that can be reversed with a few policy changes. Their ideas rarely involve a critique of a managed mass democracy, which is considered fine as long as it serves the correct demographics. As their view of human societies are reductive to only materialist and scientific interpretations, they are incapable of understanding necessary irrationalities such as myth-making and the expending of passionate energies for reasons other than increasing future safety and comfort.


Thoughts:

HBD-ers are autistic conformists -- what is bolded being the most descriptive single word to describe a bag of separate stupidities. They would be out of place in the West and rather belong to *China*, which they secretly envy and always have some positive word for.

Great geniuses, explorers, generals and the like, have had the same values as very great scientists and technical thinkers - that is creativity. Such creativity might be expressed by different subject matters, ranging from political action to some abstruse dimension of thought. Creativity must be combined with depth, which is why "businessmen" and most engineers, despite being 'creative' in some way perhaps, are shallow and cannot be called great men. (Politics adds depth to pure action, as architectural visual content adds depth to music, and allusion depth to literature.)

These are truisms but they are completely lost on the HBD "blogosphere" - and the Chinaman, Buddhist, astrologer, etc., are as far as ever from learning it.

I have spoken before of the static society that is "Singapore". Any examination of Singapore reveals the kind of utopia that HBD beta nerds furiously masturbate to in their sleep.


Young, Male and Single - June 28, 2015

Bronze Age Pervert:


At the risk of being harsh, I have to point out that this is exactly why Peter Frost and to some extent Sailer have been called the “cuckold HBD” crowd. This article contains many half-truths and some outright lies. For example, if you actually check the relevant figure, which is children born to white mothers where the father is not white, the figure for children with “hispanic” fathers and white mothers is close to 6% and the figure with black fathers is about half that much. So if Frost wanted to focus on the problem of racial sexual competition he would mention this figure, which in fact he distorts, leaving the reader to think that the majority of the 11-20% is because of interracial mating with blacks. In fact the bulk of that 11% is with “hispanics,” which you have to put in quotation marks because my bet is that the vast majority of those are South American Spaniards and not 4’7 mestizo cholos. The figure in fact for children born to white mothers with black fathers is around 3%. I don’t know about the “undeclared” figure of around 9% but there’s no reason to assume most of those are black either.

This is par for the course, as Frost has denied in the past, for example, that there is an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency among Western populations worldwide, when there is a lot of evidence for such deficiency. But there is a pattern to his denials or distortions, which is that all of thse fuel different aspects of his cuckold fantasy; so because of this article and because of his general take on things I’d put my money on it, that he watches interracial porn and has fantasies about white male feminization, which he discusses above as if it is a real problem or “strategy,” rather than a statistical blip that is mostly the practice of a certain kind of homosexual.

One thing he doesn’t discuss at all is the problem of female obesity in the West (and the likely fact that many if not most white females who breed with or marry blacks are obese and/or aged). To any reader of heartiste or similar blogs, and any observer of day to day life in the USA, this problem of white female obesity and in general white female undesirability (disagreeableness, bitchiness, sloppiness in dress, etc.) would seem to be a much bigger problem for young single white men, but of course Frost doesn’t mention this. Why? Because white female desirability is central to his cuckold fetish, without which it would whither. Note that he compares American women to East European women, which is absurd.

Finally you should know that I don’t say these things about Frost (or Sailer) just because of this article, but because of their general, and ahistorical, take on the history of Western civilization (a more appropriate name than “white,” which was never a self-identifier except in the colonies). You can see this nonsense in the last paragraphs where he complains about “Don Juans” (as if Italian culture is not even more central to Western history and culture than NW Euro), and where he has this image of “shy” beta workalike NW Euros who “built civilization.” This is garbage, as civilization was built by alphas, not betas. This is a longer discussion, but Frost and Sailer are indeed beta IT-type guys or nerdoids who see themselves and their type as foundational to Western culture, when in fact they are another symptom of its decline. Conservatives in the 19th century were already complaining about how culture was decaying because the democratic age gave dominion to the meek shopkeeper and the calculating bourgeois. We’ve forgotten this and foolishly identify “white civilization” precisely with the meek shopkeeper. But it was not always this way, and the Viking and Finn were not seen as anything like “beta” even quite recently.

The point is this, that if Western society is indeed “beta” then it deserves to fail, and it WILL fail. The right to rule doesn’t and shouldn’t belong to accountants, shopkeepers, programmers, and timid calculators…and never did.

Where Dawkins Fears To Tread

Where Dawkins Fears To Tread: Ethnic Nepotism And The Reality Of Race

By Steve Sailer

The Iraqis' fierce resistance to foreigners (us) invading their country was predictable on any number of grounds. But perhaps the most interesting is the most fundamental: the theory of "ethnic nepotism." This explains the tendency of humans to favor members of their own racial group by postulating that all animals evolve toward being more altruistic toward kin in order to propagate more copies of their common genes.

Which doesn't mean that kin groups always cooperate—they also compete among themselves, in a sort of sibling rivalry writ large. But nepotistic solidarity still matters.

Even the notoriously fractious Afghan Pashtuns think in terms of: "I against my brother. My brother and I against my cousin. My cousin and we against the world." (Note that, by maintaining a smaller footprint in Afghanistan and letting the Afghans go back to being Afghans, we've provoked much less nationalist backlash there.)

You may not have ever heard of ethnic nepotism before. That's largely because the most media savvy-explicators of Darwinism—such as Richard Dawkins, recently voted Britain's top public intellectual by Prospect magazine—are terrified that their entire field might be tarred as "racist" if the concept is given a fair public discussion.

The term "ethnic nepotism" was introduced in the 1981 book The Ethnic Phenomenon by Pierre L. van den Berghe, a white sociologist born in the old Belgian colony of the Congo.

Disgusted by white oppression of Africans, van den Berghe became a fairly conventional liberal on race. But, as he overcame his Eurocentric focus on white crimes, he realized that race-based exploitation and violence are universal human curses. This led him to sociobiology and its bedrock finding: the late William D. Hamilton's theory of kin selection and inclusive fitness—the more genes we share with another individual, the more altruistic we feel toward him.

There are no clear boundaries between extended family, tribe, ethnic group, or race. So van den Berghe coined the term "ethnic nepotism" to describe the human tendency to favor "our people."

Ethnocentrism, clannishness, xenophobia, nationalism, and racism are the almost inevitable flip sides of ethnic nepotism. (I say almost because it's important to note that you can be patriotic and work for the good of your own fellow citizens without overtly wishing ill toward any other country. Nonetheless, even patriotism still implies discrimination against noncitizens.)

The Ethnic Phenomenon is the book Karl Marx should have written. Rather than focusing on the relatively minor phenomenon of class, he should have explored the global importance of kinship.

Hamilton, the leading evolutionary theorist of the second half of the 20th Century, had figured out the mathematics and extraordinary implications of an explanation for nepotism that had been kicking around half-formed among biologists.

Hamilton pointed out that it was often useful to think of "survival of the fittest" from the point of view, as it were, of individual genes. A gene that encourages you to sacrifice your life to save two brothers or eight cousins would tend to spread.

Hamilton used his new perspective to explain a mystery that had perplexed Darwin a century before: the extreme degree of nepotistic self-sacrifice among social insects. Worker ants give up reproducing in order to help their sister, the queen, reproduce on a vast scale. Hamilton pointed out that while most species' siblings share 50 percent of their genes, ant sisters share 75 percent. This makes self-sacrifice by workers more genetically profitable.

This gene-centric viewpoint was made understandable to the reading public by Edward O. Wilson's 1975 book Sociobiology and Richard Dawkins' celebrated 1976 book, The Selfish Gene . (A better title for Dawkins' book would have been The Dynastic Gene, since your genes spread by helping promulgate copies of themselves in one's relatives).

E.O. Wilson's description in his delightful autobiography Naturalist of how he wrestled with Hamilton's epochal papers during an 18-hour train ride in 1965 is a classic:

"Impossible, I thought, this can't be right. Too simple… By dinnertime, as the train rumbled on into Virginia, I was growing frustrated and angry… And because I modestly thought of myself as the world authority on social insects, I also thought it unlikely that anyone else could explain their origin, certainly not in one clean stroke… By the time we reached Miami, in the early afternoon, I gave up. I was a convert and put myself in Hamilton's hands. I had undergone what historians of science call a paradigm shift."

In 1975, Hamilton had extended his theory to humans. In a long essay entitled Innate Social Aptitudes of Man: An Approach from Evolutionary Genetics, (which appears in the first volume of Hamilton's autobiographical Narrow Roads of Gene Land), Hamilton wrote:

"... I hope to produce evidence that some things which are often treated as purely cultural in humans—say racial discrimination—have deep roots in our animal past and thus are quite likely to rest on direct genetic foundations."

Richard Dawkins' tremendous career as a science journalist has been built on his talent at translating Hamilton's formulas into engaging prose. But he has long denied the possibility of ethnic nepotism, even though Hamilton had published an elaborate model of it the year before Dawkins published The Selfish Gene.

Dawkins' political correctness was all too apparent the 1995 interview with him conducted by Frank Miele for The Skeptic magazine:

Miele: Shortly after publication of The Selfish Gene, you wrote a letter to the editor of Nature … in which you stated that kin selection theory in no way provides a basis for understanding ethnocentrism. You said you made this statement, in part at least, to counter charges that were being made in the UK at that time by Marxist critics that Selfish Gene Theory was being used by the British National Front to support their Fascist ideology. In retrospect, do you think you went too far in trying to distance yourself from some would-be and very unwanted enthusiasts, or not far enough?

Dawkins: As to distancing myself from the National Front, that I did! The National Front was saying something like this, "kin selection provides the basis for favoring your own race as distinct from other races, as a kind of generalization of favoring your own close family as opposed to other individuals." Kin selection doesn't do that! Kin selection favors nepotism towards your own immediate close family. It does not favor a generalization of nepotism towards millions of other people who happen to be the same color as you. Even if it did, and this is a stronger point, I would oppose any suggestion from any group such as the National Front, that whatever occurs in natural selection is therefore morally good or desirable. We come back to this point over and over again. I'm definitely not one who thinks that "is" is the same as "ought."

The purpose of science, however, is not to proclaim better morals or to distance oneself from the politically unpalatable, but to help us make better predictions.

Dawkins' ostentatious fear of falling into what David Hume called the "naturalistic fallacy"—assuming "is" implies "ought"—leads him into what Steven Pinker calls the "moralistic fallacy"—assuming "ought" implies "is."

And in fact Miele easily forced Dawkins to admit that his strident pronouncement against the feasibility of ethnic nepotism was dubious:

Miele: Could there be selection for a mechanism that would operate like this--"those who look like me, talk like me, act like me, are probably genetically close to me. Therefore, be nice, good, and altruistic to them. If not avoid them?" And could that mechanism later be programmed to say, "Be good to someone who wears the same baseball cap, the same Rugby colors, or whatever?" That is, could evolution have a produced a hardware mechanism that is software programmable?

Dawkins: I think that's possible.

Hamilton could have been describing Dawkins' political weaseling when he recounted in 1996 the reception his 1975 paper on ethnic nepotism had received in a review by

"noted anthropologist, S.L. Washburn, in which, singling my paper out of the whole volume, he called it 'reductionist, racist, and ridiculous.' ... I wonder if people who struggle to extend the frontiers of a discipline against a current of peer disapproval sometimes need to convince themselves and other that they are not quite the heretics and outlaws everyone thinks and this need is expressed through an extra militancy against further extension in the direction they themselves have been taking… It is a pity to see scientists struggling to tie each other's hands in respect of some kinds of understanding and in effect crippling themselves …"

Interestingly, the distinguished political scientist Robert Axelrod, who had worked with Hamilton on crucial breakthroughs in the theory of altruism, published a 2003 paper on "The Evolution of Ethnocentric Behavior" showing that "in-group favoritism" was likely to evolve.

The main objection that Dawkins raises to ethnic nepotism is that Hamiltonian kin selection only applies to close kin, presumably because genetic similarity diffuses so rapidly as you move outward in your family tree.

To use Hamilton's way of calculating, you are 1/2 related to your brother, 1/8 to your first cousin, 1/32 to your second cousin, 1/128 to your third cousin, etc.

So, obviously, ethnic nepotism can't work because relatedness becomes vanishingly small, right?

Wrong! Because, as Hamilton pointed out in 1975, you can't ignore the effect of inbreeding—not in the "Deliverance" sense of marrying your sister, but in the sense that people from, say, Japan usually marry other people from Japan, not random mates from around the world.

Thus genetic anthropologist Henry Harpending long pooh-poohed ethnic nepotism until he finally sat down to do the math. Then, Harpending discovered that the effect was twice as strong as had been suggested. (This discovery is recounted in Frank Salter's important new book On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration).

Take race denier Richard Lewontin's famous 1972 finding that only 15% of genetic variation is among population groups. This is always interpreted in the popular press to mean that, because there is more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them, therefore (non sequitur alert!) RACIAL DIFFERENCES DO NOT EXIST!!!...

Harpending says the variation between groups is even lower, more like 12.5%, so let's use that.

What Harpending discovered, and anthropologist Vincent Sarich confirmed, is that Lewontin was using Sewall Wright's way of calculating relatedness, and you need to about double it to make it equivalent to Hamilton's way. So, 12.5% times two is 25%, which is the degree of relatedness between an uncle and his nephew…which, after all, is where the word "nepotism" comes from!

In other words, on average, people are as closely related to other members of their subracial "ethnic" group (e.g., Japanese or Italian) versus the rest of the world as they are related to their nephew versus the rest of their ethnic group.

(Sarich and Miele have explained the genetics of Harpending's discovery using slightly more aggressive assumptions than I did above).

So, the genetic basis for ethnic nepotism with each racial group is roughly as strong on average as the etymologically classic case of nepotism among close kin—the uncle-nephew bond.

Ethnic nepotism isn't a metaphor. It's a reality.

And we'd better accept it—whether Richard Dawkins thinks it would be good for his career or not.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

Darwinism: Then and Now

by Erik G. Magro Aug. 16th, 2005

The Victorian Age in England was a time of dramatic changes, new inventions, the Industrial Revolution, and an introduction to new ideologies, all of which would transform the way significant portions of society lived and thought of life forever. The overwhelming external changes in daily life during this period would match in intensity the nature of changes happening in the internal lives of the public. Charles Darwin, as a naturalist, helped usher in this change after a long voyage to the South Seas where he observed several widely unknown species. In 1859, a year after his return, he presented his observations in a book, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In it he deduced from their widely diverse natures a common thread that linked all species to a single ancestor; the Theory of Evolution as he called the phenomenon soon became a household word and stirred up massive controversy and debate, still resounding today. The implications of Darwin's theory created a deep divide in culture, a conflict of natural versus supernatural order. Not only did it offer an alternate account of the genesis of life from the Old Testament, but it also gave a sense of moral freedom from the divine Creator and His judgment; it became a cause unto itself in society among leaders in political and industrial circles, effecting science and academia. Darwinism, as the collection of theories was called, changed the course of man's history forever.

In the immediate aftermath of unleashing the evolution theory to the public, the common man was faced with a choice of how to look at life and live it. Among those exposed to these choices were some of the most important men in the business community, men who could, with their influence of wealth and power, determine the lifestyles of the middle class population by means of their product prices, work policies, and wages in the factories they owned. A staunch supporter of evolution, Herbert Spencer, developed the social application of Darwinism, which was highly influential on the practices of such powerful moguls. The ideology was known as Social Darwinism and made use of the models Darwin used to describe evolution in nature, namely, survival of the fittest and natural selection. These orders of development were the philosophical basis that publicly justified the methods factory owners were already applying in their businesses to stay competitive. As leaders of industry, they believed they had the right to impose whatever treatment they saw fit for those below them on the social ladder.

Social Darwinism reduced society to the rule of the jungle in a sense. Man became a commodity, a worker bee to be exploited by a stronger species - as opposed to a sacred being made in the image of God. Soon larger segments of society in Europe and America suffered brutal working conditions throughout most of the Industrial Revolution. Extremely long hours, puny wages, underage workers, little or no benefits, and broken spirits were the rule of the day. The strong words of activist Annie Besant give testimony of the desperate frustration during this time: "Oh if we had but a people's Dante, to make a special circle in the Inferno for those who live on the misery, and suck wealth out of the starvation of helpless girls" (1717).

Once the tremendous hardships were no longer bearable, public attention eventually organized successfully to agitate reform in labor laws and would soon influence other industrialized countries around the world like America, Germany, and France, opening the door for further progress in the workplace effecting workers even today. Whether or not they were conscious of it, by the masses taking such actions they were in essence rejecting the precepts of Darwinism: a great instance of irony, as they were popular during this time.

Even as the materialism and dialectic principles were known and influential among the ruling and elite classes long before the Victorian Age, thinkers like Darwin, Malthus, and Spencer repackaged and updated them with new observations and analysis of the natural world and society, helping to popularize them among intellectual spheres and civilians. Once these widely shared worldviews were politicized, new forms of government emerged employing many of the perceived scientific principles described by evolutionists. Two very important shapers of political thought during this time were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They believed Social Darwinism provided a way to perfect mankind behaviorally and socially. Marx even offered to dedicate his first volume of Das Kapital to Darwin. Darwin's book had given God's presence "the death-blow," he exulted to fellow socialist, Lassalle (Marx). By enhancing Socialism with Darwinism, Communism emerged as a powerful movement led by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, later wrenching control of Russia in the Revolution of 1917. All land, materials, and biological (including human) resources became property of the state. Lenin implemented social programs and began starving and slaughtering whole societies whom he regarded as herds of animals. He was encouraged by the deaths of millions and believed people would lose faith in God and turn more to socialism. To survive the famine, many turned to cannibalism. Lenin's ideology was inspired by Darwin's Origin of Species: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows" (Darwin 1886). As Darwinism spread throughout Europe, violence was legitimized under the "struggle for existence" theory. As Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff wrote in his post-war memoirs: "It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the World War came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples--" (qtd. in Joll 164).

Following in Lenin's footsteps, Stalin took control of Soviet Russia. Earlier in life, right before Stalin became a priest he read Origin of Species, and his life quickly changed; he became atheist and joined the Bolsheviks. As dictator, he executed scientists who rejected evolution and the projects developed from it, like soaking seeds in cold water for long periods of time expecting them to adapt to the low temperatures in Russia. As a result, 9 million starved to death and cannibalism once again turned humans into wild savages. During Stalin's reign, 40 million died at his hands, more than the 25 million that died fighting Nazi Germany. The system of Communism paved the way for other disciples of Marxist-Leninist-Darwinism to rise to power in Asia, such as Mao Zedong. After Darwin's work was translated in 1895 into Chinese, many believed constant violence was how evolution occurred. Under Mao, 40 million starved in his Great Leap Forward social program, 78 million in general. Communism eventually spread into surrounding North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cambodia, dragging America into strung out bloody guerilla wars with the terrorist regimes. Today, these ideologies still exist - effecting world politics in no small measure - and make Evolution mandatory learning in the education system, force families apart premised on views that humans as advanced apes do not need them, or religion and ethics, and instead must show loyalty only to the state as the highest authority.

Fascist forms of government indoctrinate the same concepts of Darwinism as Communist governments. Mussolini and Hitler were great advocates of Darwin and Spencer's work. Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's (Nazi) Party combined their deep mystical beliefs with Darwinism to inspire a grandiose vision of world conquest, leading the globe into a new age of enlightenment. Anyone who did not conform to Hitler's ideas of the model citizen were rounded up and executed as inferior races that were holding back the rest of society from evolving. Professor of modern European History, Richard Weikart reviewing his book, From Darwin to Hitler, says "Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis" (Weikart).

Every major war and revolution from the Victorian Age onward has its catalyst rooted in the dialectical-materialism philosophy known as Evolution. Today these concepts are found in Communist regimes and the western world. In the US, Communist activism broke out on the streets and college campuses during the 60s and 70s in war protests, and in general counter-culture movements under the cloak of various civil rights movements such as feminism and often with the radical motives of breaking up families. In the 1950s, Senator Joe McCarthy exposed many high-level Communists working in various posts in Washington D.C. Many of the accusations were false, but many were supported, including the allegation that elements within the US were funding Mao's regime. Professor Antony Sutton exposed the false dichotomy of Capitalism versus Communism by documenting how Wall Street and centralized banks created the Soviet superpower threat (Sutton). Neoconservatives such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rove fill key positions in the current US administration, and Irving Kristol, a disciple of Leon Trotsky (one of Lenin's top officers), founded Neoconservatism in the 1980s. Kristol explains: "Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative;" ("New York"). On top of this, national archives in the US detail how Wall Street banker, senator, and grandfather of George W. Bush, Prescott Bush, underscored the Nazi war machine and several major US corporations were contracted to build it (Aris and Campbell). Yale's secret society, Skull and Bones, was founded in 1832 by W. Russell, a member of a Germanic cult linked to the Thule Society, later morphing into the Nazi party (Sawyer). From Prescott to George W., the Bushes have been members of S&B, a.k.a. the Death's Head - death as the means to advance man's evolution through "struggle for existence". The ideologies of Fascist-Communism, thus, Social Darwinism, grip the US establishment today.

The long-winding path of Darwinism has an unmistakable imprint on the course of history since the Victorian Age and affects the globe today. The conflict of the natural evolution versus the supernatural creation of man will continue as long as the ideas do. Whether the world's remaining free peoples will abandon the laws of God and acquiesce under the mantras and slogans of socialist shills depends on the success of transnational corporations and the revolving door into the highest world councils that they co-opt. This global plutocracy via world banking and the IMF directs world governments, economies, mass media, education, resources, religion, and planetary conflict to push for the next step in man's evolution: a New World Order.

Works Cited

• Aris, Ben, and Campbell, Duncan. "How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power." Guardian Unlimited 25 Sept. 2004. 18 Mar. 2005.
• Besant, Annie. "The 'White Slavery' of London Match Workers." The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Seventh ed. Vol. 2. Eds. M. H. Abrams and Stephen Greenblatt. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. 1715-17.
• Darwin, Charles. "From Origin of Species." The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Seventh ed. Vol. 2. Eds. M. H. Abrams and Stephen Greenblatt. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. 1679-86.
• Joll, James. Europe Since 1870: An International History. Middlesex, Lnd: Penguin Books, 1990.
• Marx, Karl. Letter. Marxist Internet Archive. 1942. International Publishers. 16 Mar. 2005.
• "New York Intellectuals." 1999. PBS Online. 18 Mar. 2005.
• Sawyer, Roy. "Skull and Bones, Bush's Nazi Link." Fathermag.com. 4 Jan. 2002. 18 Mar. 2005.
• Sutton, Antony. Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer Books, 1974. 18 Mar. 2005.
• Weikart, Richard. "Dustjacket Blurb." From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. 17 Dec. 2004. CSU. 16 Mar. 2005.