Saturday, September 17, 2016

The Alt-Right, Paramount in Every Way

The left may have shown some interest in actual science once, but that was a century or so ago, and much of what they concluded then is anathema to them now, and they''d consider a lot of it horrible right-wing thinking today. If you doubt that, google "eugenics."

But since those halcyon days, the left has developed a strange relationship with science. I always think of poor old Darwin first, because the left just loves to use him to bash religion and the church. Contrariwise, his theory of evolution makes it impossible to consider groups of people (races, ethnic groups, etcc.) as being even remotely to be equal in any significant way.

No, it's the right, and by that I mean the Real Right the Traditional Right, and/or the alt-right that is the keeper of the science flame, however feeble, while the left is bogged down in the anti- or non- science mentality.

Just listen to one of them declaim about how homosexuality has been "proven" to be hard-wired, while gender identity is far more fluid and difficult to determine. All submitted without anything similar to proof. Indeed, the left has abandoned the scientific method as proof in favor of some new "consensus" idea. I believe that often means that scientists in one area of study are asked their opinion of a scientific controversy they know nothing about — asking an engineer about racial equality, or an astronomer about sexual identity — and presenting the results as scientific opinion. But worse, now they present "consensus" thinking of people in general, or even that of pundits.

Well, John K. Press gives us a good summary. This is from

The Alt-Right loves science; the Left hates science. We must repeatedly repeat these claims in order to bewilder and reverse the narrative wherein the Left is 'intellectual' and the Alt-Right are reactionary 'philistines.' This can attract people to the Alt-Right who like to think of themselves as modern scientific sorts.

To flip the narrative, we must highlight the Left's putting ideology in front of science. Their resorting to calling people 'haters' in response to scientific facts confirms that they put ideology in front of science. We must make the 'Scientific Right' the West’s default stereotype.

Here are some assumption-bending talking points:


The Left's anti-science bias is so deep that they deny that men and women are different sizes! When they discuss women in the infantry and fire departments, their anti-science bias edges on lunacy.

The Left's being aghast that women are not equal in every field is a subtler manifestation of their complete rejection of science. In all life but amoebas and plants, there is specialization between genders. 

The Left are not only in conflict with basic science, they are internally incoherent: One minute they assert that biology determines transgender identity (born that way) they next they are asserting that gender is a construct.


The claim that homosexuality is 100% genetically determined is profoundly unscientific. It shows that they do not even understand how genetics work. Complex traits have multiple genetic and environmental components. 

If he had a twin, the chances
are his twin would be straight.
A recent study found that of identical twins wherein one twin was gay, only 20 percent of the second twins were gay. These twins share 100% of the same genes. So, ipso facto, homosexuality cannot be totally genetic! Boom. Done.

In complex traits environmental factors always play a role! We won’t have good culturist policy until we acknowledge this. But, attempts to consider policy herein would be a tangent. My point is that in failing to assume that both multiple genes and environmental factors impact behaviors, the Left shows itself to be profoundly anti-scientific. 


The Left acknowledges that skin color and physiognomy have evolved in the last 50,000 years or so. But, they insist that this evolution stopped right at the edge of the brain. This even as natural selection happened in exponentially more diverse niches!

IQ differences are scientifically established. This, again, is not to imply a specific policy. As a culturist, I acknowledge that regardless of IQ, multitudes of non-Whites are wonderful people and western patriots. Promoting cultural identity, rather than genetic differences, can unite the West. 

But, two implications flow from acknowledging IQ and race: (a) It shows that all differing levels of achievement are not necessarily evidence of White racism or oppression; and (b) Acknowledging IQ exposes the thinness of the Left’s concept of evolutionary science.


Only 29% of American Meteorology Society members agree that climate change has been "largely or entirely caused by human activity." When people say climate change is 'man-made' they exclude all other factors. And, again, positing single causes for complex phenomena shows an extremely shallow understanding of science.

Yet, in her DNC nomination speech, Clinton punctuated her fealty to the idea of man-made climate change, with the sentence, "I believe in science." Her implying people don't believe in science if they doubt a hypothesis that is still being debated is further evidence of the Left’s putting ideology over real science. 


While it is not the easiest talking point for arguing that the Alt-Right loves science and the Left is scientifically illiterate, the place of the family in nature is important.

Within months of their birth, nearly all animals are functioning adults. It takes around 20 years for human brains to mature because we are uniquely intelligent and inhabit a cultural niche. This is why we have evolutionarily stridden towards monogamy.[1]

In regard to achieving our biological potential, single parents are much worse than married, monogamous, coed parents. In rejecting the monogamous family as a model, the Left is putting ideology over science.

Nice family, but still just below replacement rate.


K-selected mammals, such as humans, fight for territory and access to women.[2] This is not to say that we must live in constant competition with each other; Altruism geared towards in-group survival is also a common feature of K-selected species.[3] But, as a relatively K-selected species, man’s survival and potential lay in adopting K-selected values.

Humans aside, the ubiquity of hierarchy in nature makes the Left's constant obsession with equality absurd, unnatural and unscientific. It is similar to aiming at all people being the same height. Only, under communism, the unnaturalness of this obsession led to tens of millions being killed. 

Furthermore, evolution has put proclivities into us that aid survival. For example, at as early as 14 months, infants prefer learning from those with the local accent.[4] Men are programmed to look at the bodies of women in prime fertility age. And, shame is a mechanism that guides us towards pro-social behavior.

None of these findings, again, argue for a particular position. But, the Left presents these natural proclivities (male competition, heterosexuality, hierarchy, in-group preference, leering, shaming, gender, family, and race) as hateful irrational biases that we must overcome. Thus the Left’s ideological strictures war with both evolutionary psychology and logic. The Alt-Right accepts the scientific view of man.


Hillary and the Left have made it common sense that the Left is full of scientists and the Alt-Right is full of anti-science evangelical creationists. We do have more evangelicals. But, first, the science noted above supports evangelical values. And, more importantly, after the Left’s use of evolution to deny creationism, they reject each and every one of evolution's implications.

So, as good Alt-Right culturists, let’s not just sit on this truism, chewing cud and agreeing. Let’s aggressively push this truth: the Alt-Right is an intellectual, scientific movement taking aim at the Left’s ideological war on science. 



[1] See Ridley, Matt, The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge(Harper: 2015), 67 – 68.
[2] Anonymous Conservative, The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans (MacClenny: Federalist Publications, 2014).
[3] Wilson, David Sloan, Does Altruism Exist? Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015)
[4] Haun, D.B.M, and Over, H. "Like Me: A Homophily-Based Account of Human Culture," in Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology, Language, and Religion, Richerson, Peter, J. and Christiansen, Morton, H. (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2013), pgs. 79 – 80.

John K. Press, Ph.D., teaches at a university in South Korea. He is the author of the book, Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. He is also the author of a biography of the first acknowledged 'culturist,' Matthew Arnold. More information can be found at  
Quibcag: how better to illustrate this than with science girl Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない)?
The original:


  1. Yeah look, this culture crap is a red herring. The fact that blacks fail miserably in dozens of countries some of which they misrule totally obliterates any cultural argument. No culture in human history has allowed them to succeed in any way similar to Whites. Don't even try to throw a bone to the left, they will go for your throat anyway. Their cultural relativism makes any talk of culture meaningless. Anyone stupid enough to buy the bogus claims of clowns like Boas that hunter gatherer societies in Africa are just as complex and advanced as Western Civilization is too dumb to even know what culture is, so using that argument gets nowhere.
    It might not all be IQ, but it might as well be. Intelligence is pretty much the main driver of all activities. Its hard to find anything you can actually learn to do that has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. The laughable attempts by humanists to invent new forms of intelligence based on psychometric principle of multiple dimensions of IQ just show how dishonest and unscientific they really are when it comes down to facts. Emotional Intelligence is just a fancypants slang term for the old "street smarts" excuse that fell flat on its face. Emotions have nothing to do with intelligence. Emotional intelligence is the latest gambit in an old game of lying by making shit up. The fact they have actively suppressed psychometry and actually disowned great scientists for just acknowledging it shows the futility in expecting any honest debate.

    1. "I am not bisexual. I am a homosexual who suffers temporary amnesia in the presence of strong willed ladies!"

      -- Albert Innaurato, "Coming of Age in SoHo" (1985)

  2. The author falls into the trap when he misnames "sex" as "gender". What sex you are born is biology. Gender has to do with language and culture.

  3. All of you should have realized by now that the enemy has a problem not so much with us, but with Reality. They seem to believe they can change Reality. You don't get more insane then that do you? Only Gods can truly change Reality. Are they Gods? Gods don't bleed. If it bleeds we can kill it. You can't kill Gods.

  4. The majority of "scientists" on the prog/lib side are social-scientists which should be a lifestyle description and not a legitimate university position.

  5. tbh i only came hear since i saw anime.