Print this post Print this post

From the Savanna to Helsinki:
Tales of Evolution Told by an Idiot & Signifying Nothing

1,546 words

In Jordan Peterson’s YouTube lectures, which are really the closest thing to science you will find online if the second closest thing is a Tom & Jerry cartoon, one is told – among several other pieces of exotic anthropology – that “human females are picky.” Unlike chimpanzee females, who would happily mate with any beta male brave enough to hunt on an alpha’s territory, our females “judge men.”

How they judge them seems to be quite a mystery for this Jungian prophet of evolutionary morals, who is otherwise brave enough to test his science against highly controversial themes, such as “why was Hitler evil?” or “how friendly is Islam to Canadian middle-class values?” Now, people with much less Jungian insight into the mysteries of being, but with a few hours of reading classical Greek-Latin literature, or Scandinavian, Celtic, Caucasian etc. epos (or ethnological descriptions if your interest leans toward traditional cultures with no autochthonous literature) would naively answer: women judge men according to their father’s opinion about them – whether that opinion was based on the possession of cattle, of gold, military merits, or piousness and (as in orthodox Jewish communities) extensive by-heart knowledge of sacred books written in dead languages. The reason why this “female” judgement becomes mysterious as soon as it cannot any more be based on a father’s opinion is, precisely, that it never was female judgement in the first place, but female acceptance of masculine judgements about the relative value of individuals in a given society. As to what happens when some human society has become lunatic enough to take seriously the idea of “female judgement,” the answer is the kind of collective suicide experiment currently named “Western society” – the essence of which I understood 10 years ago, while visiting Finland (for the first, and hopefully the very last time.)

It turned out that Finland, though having signed most of the fashionable pieces of international anti-terrorist legislation adopted in the wake of 9/11, was still allowing the sale of totally anonymous SIM-cards. My friend H. (who had become an orthodox monk in Karelia but had just been expelled from his monastery because of some filmed intercourse with the cleaning lady in the monastery’s toilets) explained to me with a straight face that cutting the Finns’ access to totally anonymous SIM-cards would amount to the suppression of most white births in the country, since most white children were conceived during weekends (i.e. in a state of utter drunkenness), by strangers, and then raised by single mothers. On the following weekends, I myself became eyewitness to discerning and highly evolution-trained female judgement – including teenage women judging that I was adult and solvent enough to get them some booze, and married women taking advantage of the fact that their husbands were in the men’s room to become multiculturally exogamic. Had I had any interest in any unknown descendance raised by moronic feminists close to the polar circle, I could, by now, have one or two children in Finland.

No, Jordan Peterson, women are not picky. They are submissive, and you know it. Not because anybody on earth (“the Patriarchate” – or maybe “the Matriarchate”?) has made them submissive. They are submissive simply because they have glands producing estrogen instead of testosterone. Because there are only two sexes, and genders exist only within grammars. Of course, it is culturally possible to declare that those inherently submissive creatures shall be considered as having “free choice” – it’s not even a lie, provided we also describe as “free choice” the fascination butterflies have for burning candles. It is also culturally possible to declare that vaginas are erectile and shall assume the active role in heterosexual intercourse: the only structural limit to this kind of experiment is how far you are willing to take the use of English away from reality and common sense. And then, there’s a less immediate, but much more pitiless limit in the fact that generations of any given nation who play this kind of game tend to be the very last generations of those nations.

On the contrary, males are picky, because the physical fitness of mothers is key to the survival of offspring (while, in sophisticated societies, physical fitness in men can be replaced by a variety of socially useful skills), so that male mating choices have actually become the refuge of classical evolutionary logic in our species. The very popularity of Jordan Peterson (and many other YouTube gurus with a very clear male appeal) is, in itself, a symptom of male dereliction in English-speaking Western societies – i.e., a symptom of the fact that, even after close to complete feminist brainwashing, most males will still rather spend solitary evenings listening to the makeshift life wisdom of some Canadian charlatan than court or marry that unpickable piece of obese and psychopathic wreck known as the average Western single woman. Ten years ago, my local post office in Budapest was exclusively staffed with nice Hungarian grandmothers. By now, most of them have retired, but none of the retirees have been replaced by any Hungarian woman. All the new employees are not-too-virile young men. Hungarian woman, who cannot afford exotic beliefs in “changing the taste of men” or “challenging cisgender sexual clichés,” generally watch what they eat and how they dress, so that their objective value on the globalized sex market is far beyond the purchasing power of average Hungarian males. As Viktor Orbán himself made it perfectly clear in his last Tusványos speech, this is the one problem that even a zero-migrant Hungary/Visegrad group will still have to face, and which FIDESZ will not be able to solve by building external walls on the Serbian border – but only, maybe, by rebuilding the much-needed internal walls of common sense and tradition.

While Jordan Peterson has become immensely popular by the process of micro-dropping such banalities which, in the terminally-ill Western academia, have become fatally heretical statements (such revolutionary truths as “men and women are not identical”), by and large, the worldview conveyed by his videos is not very far from Justin Trudeau’s: the West is the best place on earth, thanks to its liberal ideology protecting it against the demons of “totalitarianism” (meaning, of course: Hitler, Stalin, and Islam.) Why almost nobody seems to be willing to procreate and give an ethnically continuous future to this very paradise on earth is a problem which Jordan Peterson and other sycophants of shallow anti-postmodernity never confront. On the contrary, by constantly assimilating postmodernity (e.g. under the form of the LGBT ideology or the SJW culture) to 20th-century communism (which, interestingly enough, was historically also the primary target of postmodern thinkers, almost always recruited in the ranks of anti-Stalinist socialism), they indulge in the implicit illusion that before “totalitarianism” (say, in Berlin under the Weimar Republic) the West was just fine. As a matter of fact, there is hard demographic evidence showing that the lethal syndrome officially misnamed as “demographic transition” (read: transition from life to extinction) had already begun, and European thinkers of that period, whether on the right or the left (except, of course, right-liberals and left-liberals) were not as shy as today in identifying its root-causes, under the (then unambiguously and universally used) term of Americanization.

Now, what’s lethal to mankind in the American model? Certainly not the First Amendment or hamburgers – not even Coca-Cola or slavery, which – problematic as it may be morally under a Christian or Muslim perspective – was, after all, the basis of Athenian democracy. It is the idea of individual rights – or, better said: the illusion of such rights. After the divorce of state and society (which produced what is known in developed countries under the name of institutions, instead of embodied powers) and the creation of an abstract law system conceived to protect society against the inevitable overreaching of state power, it became essential to define the subject of the rights guaranteed by such a system. And, under the influence of Illuminist Philosophy, this subject was identified with a creature both unable to resist the Leviathan and unworthy in itself of such a protection: the individual. As my friend Levan Vassadze has often stated, the subject of constitutional right should be the family. Then we might have a chance to make technology and social complexification compatible with the survival of our species.

But a different choice was made, long before LGBT, SJW and the first signs of postmodernity – a choice which defines, in fact, Western modernity as such: the choice of the individual. As a consequence of this choice, it was only a matter of time before the force meant to protect society (the new demon of negative liberty) started to poison it, by allowing children to oppose the will of their parents, women to oppose their fathers and husbands, etc. Unlike characters of antique and classic comedies, who confront their Malthusian senile parents because they’re eager to get married, Romantic (i.e. bourgeois) heroes confront their mentally sane (i.e. “boring”) parents in the name of the freedom to commit suicide – a rare and expensive, hence still glamorous luxury by the time of the first Romantic writings, which, in the meantime, has become the everyday suburban reality of socially atomized and brainwashed white trash wasting a sterile life on junk food, junk TV, and the junk philosophy of Jordan Peterson.

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

28 Comments

  1. Eva
    Posted March 9, 2018 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    You guys discuss so much about evolution, female mating selection, marriage customs, etc.

    Please, have you hear of such thing (choker!) people in general (including women), nowadays engage in recreational sex. Is it good, moral, good for society?-Probably NO. But it is extremely foolish to believe, that people who have sex after encounter in a bar would proceed to have children. Sex is not the same as procreation and believe it or not many men and women have sex for decades untill they decide to marry (and THEN get picky) and only then have children.

    And finally:
    “A bee is exclaiming: oh there are blossoming flowers everywhere! A fly on the other hand says: I see sh*t and dung wherever I fly!”

  2. inq
    Posted March 4, 2018 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    I find this “Tales of Evolution (…)” essay spot on, inclusive that femme fatale western man pictured.

    Well, it is about that modern female human specie, presumably picky.
    It seems that the female judgement is mysterious, and irrational from her toes to the top of her head at best.
    A product of evolutionary morals ?

    http://www.tomatobubble.com/id1208.html

    @Magister Ludi
    “Your entire thinking is flawed, an ill constructed sandcastle; you don’t even understand a basic biological fact as is female mate choice and how it determined human evolution. Something anybody with a basic knowledge of Darwin is familiar with.
    I ask you again to please stop insulting CC readership’s intelligence with your intellectual laziness and resentment.”

    A propos Darwin, evolution, etc.

    THE DARWINIAN MYTH OF THE ‘SIMPLE CELL’
    http://www.tomatobubble.com/id755.html

    COMPLEX INTEGRATION: THE FATAL FLAW OF “EVOLUTION”
    http://www.tomatobubble.com/integrated_complexity_evolution.html

    Pace, pace, mio Dio!

  3. Posted March 3, 2018 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    As to what happens when some human society has become lunatic enough to take seriously the idea of “female judgement,” the answer is the kind of collective suicide experiment currently named “Western society”…

    Modeste has taken a generalization that is at least defensible, namely that women on average are more influenced by broad social opinions than men, and turned it into a hard biological truth, which it surely is not. Obviously women are capable of judgment.

    It may be, for some men, entertaining and personally satisfying to say that all women are incapable of judgment; but that doesn’t make it true.

    **

    Marion Le Pen (Capable of Judgment)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn80bxXr8eQ

  4. Posted March 2, 2018 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    Maybe birthrates in the West have tanked because White men have no game.

    Proof: White men would rather stay home and listen to some charlatan than court or marry that unpickable piece of obese and psychopathic wreck as the average Western single woman.

  5. Petronius
    Posted March 2, 2018 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    I think as well this is pretty unfair, written in a pretentious, all-too-forced style. The author tries too hard to present himself as being superior than Peterson. I also wonder on what kind of planet he lives, or if he has ever been married or had any relationship with an actual woman.

    Well, l’ll say something banal too, as we live in times where people tend to forget the most simple things: Women ARE picky and judgmental, the younger and the hotter they are, the more so, to put in a Heartiste sort of way. Any millennial who ever wanted to find a proper girl friend or simply to get laid knows this. Women are “submissive”? Give me a break. That’s really a rough simplification of the Alpha/Beta theory from the old Manosphere scence. As another commentator put it: “Women are submissive *when necessary*; they are *also* picky when it comes to who they choose to mate with.” Also go check world literature on that (starting with Homer, women’s choices are actually quite unlike the author’s ideas in the Iliad and Odyssey.).

    Millennial Woes in a recent video nailed far better Peterson’s faults and shortcomings.

    • Modeste
      Posted March 2, 2018 at 7:27 am | Permalink

      “superior than Peterson”: I think the correct English for this would be “superior TO Peterson”

      Yes, the author was married.
      Yes, the author had some “relationship with actual wom[e]n” (probably more than J.P., if we are to believe his exemplary story of love and fidelity in marriage – not a motive of pride for the author, who is simply answering your questions).

      “Women are “submissive”? Give me a break.”
      Indeed they are. They always embrace the ideology of the Father. In Western society, which in most cases does not any more have actual fathers (men respected by their wife), the Father is the State (i.e. the guy paying for your expenses when you ditch your boyfriend), so that, ever since the State (and, most importantly, its brain, which is the Academia) has been hijacked by cultural Marxist, Western women are predominantly cultural Marxists. Easy to check in any electoral statistics throughout the West, including the USA, including the last presidential elections.

      • Petronius
        Posted March 2, 2018 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

        ‘“superior than Peterson”: I think the correct English for this would be “superior TO Peterson”’

        I’m not a native english speaker. But at least you confirmed again your compulsion to present yourself as superior! 🙂

        If you have had relationships with women, why are you talking such nonsense then?

        You also just added a peculiar definition of “submissive” to make your point, and then you extended it metaphorically (“Father” = “State”). The claim that women “always embrace the ideology of the Father” is not even true.

        • Petronius
          Posted March 4, 2018 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          I think Schwartz is confusing “submissiveness” with “conformism”, then what he say rings a bit truer. Women are in general more conformist than men, more orientated towards the Heideggerian “man”, more socially /”outer” directed. Within that framework they can certainly be very “picky”. However, to the chagrin of feminism, there some picking points that seem biologically hard-wired, see f.e. Roger Devlin on that.

          • Modeste
            Posted March 4, 2018 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

            Indeed, “conformism” might be a better lexical choice than “submissiveness” in a human (hence highly cultural) context. Conformism is nevertheless, IMO, most of the time the cultural result of (biological) submissiveness.
            Please also notice that I never denied the existence of some “biologically hard-wired” “picking points”. But, considering that these criteria (such as height, dentition and hair) are actually even more primitive in essence than masculine criteria of female beauty (total morons can be 2 meters high, have perfect teeth and abundant hair), I just cannot see how a pickiness based on such criteria could favor positive evolutionary choices in a the highly differentiated societies highly cultural species – which, in this context, applies to Indonesian Islam as well as Italian Catholicism (the only exception would be the few remaining societies of hunter-gatherers of African and Brazilian forests…).
            Maybe the phrasing of my critique was a bit too synthetic. A more analytic approach would state that:
            1. Most women (the upper 60-80% of the sophistication scale) are just TRYING to be picky, because feminism (AND, strangely enough, J.P.) tells them to do so; the only result of that attitude is that they are never sure to have picked the right guy, accumulate successive lovers, experience growing disgust and either abandon any family plans, or pick up some loser for short-lived marriage in last moment panic.
            2. Other women (the lower 20-40%) act more naturally, i.e. show a rather chimps-like behavior, and provided the alpha gorilla they pick up does not disappear after the first night of the first child, they are the one liable to bear several children, which is just perfect is what we want is to go back as soon as possible to a social model of tribal hunter-gatherers.

    • K
      Posted March 2, 2018 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

      @Petronius, the author is right. There is a reason we see white men flee western countries for more traditional eastern ones. I also remember seeing studies on how women are unsatisfied with partners more attractive then them. I have yet to see any video by Peterson rebuking women for their unrealistic expectations and inflated sense of worth. He seems to only think men need to be challenged to be better and women are the best judges of that.

      The most effort a woman in the west is expected to put in is just take care of her body and even that standard has gone out the window.

      I also don’t understand why commentators here think we haven’t been living under decades of total nonsense arguing women can do everything a man does and better. It is very evident careerist women think they are hundred times better than their male counterparts when in reality most men would be able to do her job and be better at it. We see this overestimation in women’s capability everywhere and this inflates their ego. This is just one aspect.

      Most women in the west have completely disconnected with a realistic sense of themselves. They are not picky because that is just “how women are” they are picky because they have been fed that by male leadership that caters to their most absurd and extreme members.

  6. K
    Posted March 1, 2018 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Modern women are socially engineered to have an inflated sense of self-worth and attractiveness. This results in them having extremely high and absurd expectations. Even with partners more attractive than they are, they think they could do better. Now, we have the observable reality of women being picky when in other more traditional countries where women lack these inflated egos their true natue is more observable. Am I understanding you correctly?

    • Modeste
      Posted March 2, 2018 at 5:57 am | Permalink

      Exactly. And “socially engineered” is the right phrase here: historians know exactly how much it costed for the oligarchy to CREATE the so-called “natural” career-aspirations of women – an even harder task than convincing them that they should take on smoking (which, as we know, was Freud’s nephew’s personal contribution to this magnificent Western civilization J.P. is in love with).

  7. Magister Ludi
    Posted March 1, 2018 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    I find this article excessively harsh and somewhat dishonest in his representation of Professor Peterson. Mr Schwartz (((?))) comes across as someone blinded by hatred to the point of throwing the baby with the bath water. Granted Peterson is clearly not one of us, but he’s in many cases merely mistaken and not an enemy. His search for truth is honest and he could be ultimately reasoned with. His common sense message is helpful and valuable to a vast audience of young males that are starving to hear about discipline and responsibility and it brings many of them to our side. Mr Peterson demonstrated beyond any doubt bravery and even physical courage standing up in numerous occasions for what he believes is right against hordes of SJWs and other degenerates -who unlike him ARE our enemies- and by this encouraging and showing many others it can be done. He has thus earned my respect and that of countless other men. Of course Mr Schwartz deserves the same esteem if he’s done similar deeds exposing himself to the public eye. If that is so I do not know because I’ve never heard about it.
    Peterson’s message for those who actually ever listened to what he said is not revolutionary and certainly flawed, but it has a core of traditional values and wisdom that help and put a lot of young men in the right path. Instead of fighting people like him we should encourage people like him because he gives tools to men to improve their lives in ways that ultimately lead to our worldview even if Peterson himself doesn’t share it. To attack him with the pointless venom is if not a clumsy strategical mistake an action of bitter bitchiness the reader should question the ulterior motives of this author.

    • Modeste
      Posted March 1, 2018 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      Well, I never denied Mr. Peterson the qualities of an outstanding motivational speaker, and I personally very much appreciate his dietetic advice (about the importance of a good breakfast, for instance). I also think that G. Clooney is a very good actor (as I’m sure many people on the right also do).
      Now, if this is not only about talents, but also about ideology, and, for instance, the future of white people, I can hardly see any matter of greater importance than the catastrophic white birth rate. How we solve this problem obviously primarily depends on how we understand it: quite a typical task for a psychologist with ambitions (not really covered by proper training – mais passons) in the field of evolutionary ethology -such as JP.
      Bottom line is that, given his enormous popularity, JP cannot any more be a simple “friend” or “enemy” of any resistance movement, but rather become or not become a general in its army. He de facto already has such a rank. Of course, he wouldn’t have reached it without at least SOME affinity with national-revolutionary theses (though, if we rely on Antifa hatred to determine who our potential jail-mates might be, we’re at risk of having to also embrace Žižek pretty soon…). But do we really want to risk an entire army on that man’s judgement? I think this is a more realistic phrasing of the question underlying this (admittedly, too sarcastic) paper.
      IMO, young men “starving to hear about discipline and responsibility” are emotionally already on our side, long before becoming Peterson fans. And it’s very nice to see Prof. Peterson lecturing them into becoming worthy husbands in a society which (for their generation) hardly knows anymore what a worthy wife is. By simultaneously telling their female counterparts to keep doing what they’re doing (i.e. voluntary ethnocide by ways of what he complacently depicts as “pickiness”), however, he gives the impression of having rescued them from the swamps of Weimar only to send them to the Stalingrad of forced celibacy and the Feminist Gulag. Which is not only useless (except from the point of view of JP’s revenues), but also cruel.

      • Magister Ludi
        Posted March 1, 2018 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

        Again you distort Peterson’s message to fit your very short sighted opinion on him. He does not encourage any of the excesses of feminism and it is understood by anybody, except morons and/or people who willingly try to misunderstand him (like Cathy Newman) that a worthy husband certainly would marry a worthy wife. His own personal life is the best example of this, he married his neighbor whom he knew since his childhood. They raised children together and you can clearly see he loves her and respects her and is reciprocated. This, more than all the silly ideology helps white nationalism. A healthy loving marriage successfully raising children together. Follow this example instead of attacking a good, honest man that might not agree with you on your doctrine and (in the current circumstances) somewhat unrealistic views. You’re letting ideology blind you and that is not white, unless you think Hebrew fanaticism is white. We need more men like Peterson, I repeat he’s not your enemy. Control your obvious resentment and jealousy of him and appreciate the good he does. Be a bit more like him. And stop whining that he’s not as you want him to be.
        Focus your energy in those who are really harming white people with words, deeds and example there’s so many of them why do you need to vomit such poison on one of the few voices against degeneracy and irresponsibility.
        Also that puerile picture you chose to represent the article disqualifies you as an honest critic. If it was not your choice you still allowed your words to be published under such a slanderous image, it only shows how petty you are. I encourage you to reflect on this and how it makes you appear to your peers. I am a long time reader of CC and I urge to consider the excellent quality and profound thought us readers expect, admire and enjoy reading here. Do not insult our intelligence. There are other, more appropriate forums for such lazy writing.

        • Modeste
          Posted March 2, 2018 at 6:28 am | Permalink

          “he married his neighbor whom he knew since his childhood. They raised children together and you can clearly see he loves her and respects her and is reciprocated”
          i.e. he lives in a life situation which has become exceptional in the West, and this might help to explain his relative blindness on Feminism issues.
          This, and/or cowardice?
          No, come on, J.P. is a brave man, never fearing to deal with controversial issues, such as “why was Hitler evil” (and answering the question based on Nietzsche’s resentment theory, which is the most Philosemitic piece of philosophy ever written in German).
          Judging by your comments on “Hebrew fanaticism” (probably based on my pen name – which is rather funny), maybe you should try and check whether Mr. Peterson loves you as much as you love him. I’m afraid this might be a one-sided affair.

          • Magister Ludi
            Posted March 2, 2018 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

            I am perfectly aware of the disagreements I might have with professor Peterson and if I ever had the good fortune to converse with him about them I am sure that would be a most interesting and enriching experience for both of us. Because he is capable of that manliest of western traditions of debating ideas, not people. I do not expect mr Peterson to follow my ideology. You do and you resent him deeply because he does not which is very silly and a bit childish. And you have a total lack of awareness of how that makes you look like.
            I engage you not because I expect you at this point to realise the error of your petty words, but so that others might see what you are -as a bad example of the kind of people we do not need among us.
            Again with subterfuge you try to impute cowardice on JBP and by that very action the only coward here is you. Yes, Peterson is not against feminism as you want him to be (although feminists might disagree with you, particularly Cathy Newman after he refuted the page gap dogma so brilliantly) yes, he thinks Hitler was evil. So what? Most people do think Hitler was evil, that’s not a fight I find worthy of our attention at this moment. That’s what Stormfront is for.
            Attacking decent people like Peterson, specially out of resentment and envy posing as “critique” is not something we need at this moment. It is a clumsy mistake just for some sordid ego trip that neither helps our cause nor people. The man himself lives a decent respectable life by the standards most of us would like people to live. We want more people like him and less weirdos that barely grasp reality and just vomit ill digested pua nonsense.
            Your entire thinking is flawed, an ill constructed sandcastle; you don’t even understand a basic biological fact as is female mate choice and how it determined human evolution. Something anybody with a basic knowledge of Darwin is familiar with.
            I ask you again to please stop insulting CC readership’s intelligence with your intellectual laziness and resentment.

          • Modeste
            Posted March 4, 2018 at 4:11 am | Permalink

            “The man himself lives a decent respectable life by the standards most of us would like people to live.”
            So it seems, yes. I think this is also the case of a lot of leftist pundits. And of Tony Blair. And I’m not aware of any evidence that G. Soros would be affected with any personal perversion, or characterized by any scandalous behavior. Thus, I simply cannot see the political relevance of this statement.
            My “personal resentment” against Peterson exists only in your mind. I have friends much richer than he is, and would certainly not exchange my life for his.
            Though, on a personal level, the guy is, indeed, sympathetic, and I certainly wouldn’t mind having a beer with him. But again, this has nothing to do with serious matters, such as politics or ideology.

            “We want more people like him and less weirdos that barely grasp reality and just vomit ill digested pua nonsense.”
            At this point, I feel compelled to ask: who is “we”?
            It seems that some readers do agree with my paper. Are they part of that “we”?

            “you don’t even understand a basic biological fact as is female mate choice and how it determined human evolution. Something anybody with a basic knowledge of Darwin is familiar with.”
            No, indeed, I do not understand how procrastinating first births until the age of 35 and then choosing (best case scenario) a “beta male” for insemination (sorry: “fatherhood”) – or (if no white beta is stupid enough to walk into the trap) some immigrant (who cares? anyway, the semen-donor will have no rights over the progeny…) would positively “determine human evolution”. As your guru carefully avoids this topic, maybe you could explain us how, according to Darwin and Homer, this magnificent Western female pickiness will make the white race flourish and prevail.

  8. Kentigern
    Posted March 1, 2018 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    This is nonsense. Women are submissive *when necessary*; they are *also* picky when it comes to who they choose to mate with.

    Men, in my experience, are the very opposite of picky. They will take whatever they can get.

    Your theory does not correlate with observable reality.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted March 1, 2018 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      I agree, when left to their healthy instincts women and men chose their partner according to the following criteria :

      Women choose competence and strength. Men choose beauty and loveliness. This can be explained by the following biological motives that are mostly unconscious.

      A woman wants to bear children, therefore she wants to have a husband who can provide for her, hence she prefers a competent candidate. She also wants to be
      protected, hence she prefers a strong candidate.

      For a man to have healthy progeny, he needs a healthy wife. Beauty is symmetry, which is an indication of a healthy constitution, hence a man prefers a beautiful woman. In order for the children to grow up in a stable environment, the marriage must be stable, hence the partner must have a pleasant character.

      All what nature is about is survival of the species, hence procreation, hence appropriate choices must be made. Those choices are given in the healthy instincts of both women and men. However healthy instincts can be corrupted by a corrupt culture, which see nowadays in the modern West.

    • Modeste
      Posted March 1, 2018 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      Well, of course I do not know where you live, but if it’s anywhere in the West, and if you don’t belong to some demographically strong minority (generally of non-European or mixed ascendance), maybe you should remember that the “observable reality” you refer to is the reality of a dying species, while Peterson’s remark (sorry, I should have linked the video) – hence also my critique – is about Sapiens Sapiens in general. Maybe seeing this “observable reality” as something normal and healthy is key to understanding why you (as a civilization) will probably not be around anymore by 2100…

    • Posted March 3, 2018 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      Men, in my experience, are the very opposite of picky. They will take whatever they can get.

      That’s so obviously true as a generalization that I can’t understand why the author doesn’t recognize it. There is also a convincing socio-biological explanation for this general male pattern of non-pickiness.

      It’s possible he means that men are especially picky about the marriage partners they select, but even then I doubt that’s true. The facts of biology would predict greater female pickiness.

      On the other hand, there are some valuable ideas here:

      As my friend Levan Vassadze has often stated, the subject of constitutional right should be the family. Then we might have a chance to make technology and social complexification compatible with the survival of our species.

      • Modeste
        Posted March 4, 2018 at 4:31 am | Permalink

        I never said that there would be any evolutionary reasons for male mammals in general to be more picky than females (indeed, the contrary is true).
        I do think, however, that there also exists a thing called culture. Remember no adult mammals outside the human species have parents (we call them “parents”, but this is really nothing more than an anthropomorphic metaphor): they have a mother as long they need one, then (and this apply crucially to their mating period), they’re on their own.
        Hence, before comparing us to chimps, maybe J.P. should compare us (the West) to what I would call “mainstream Sapiens Sapiens” (i.e. nearly all human cultures on Earth, including our own a few centuries ago): how many such cultures could you name where women have been allowed to be “picky”?
        Now remember that our common history with chimps ended millions of years ago. And that at least since Neolithic times, inborn (mammal) human female pickiness has not been allowed to act as an evolutionary determiner. In other words: present-day women are the evolutionary result of hundreds of generations of non-picky women (who became successful through submission, not pickiness). And they live in a social environment of such a complexity that cannot even be compared to the life environment of primates. In such conditions: how many chances do you think this recently reconquered pickiness has to result in a survival-fit mating behavior?

        • Posted March 4, 2018 at 11:05 am | Permalink

          Modeste wrote:

          … at least since Neolithic times, inborn (mammal) human female pickiness has not been allowed to act as an evolutionary determiner.

          If you mean that _during_ neolithic times women did not make their own choices in the selection of their life-partners, you are only taking a guess. No one could possibly know that for certain. My own guess (for what it’s worth) is that they often did choose their partners.

          present-day women are the evolutionary result of hundreds of generations of non-picky women (who became successful through submission, not pickiness)

          If you mean that women in the past often had their marriage partners selected for them, then the same could be said of men. If two fathers get together to arrange the marriage of their children, and each father has the power to compel the marriage, then neither the bride nor the groom has made a choice. Both men and women, in this scenario, would submit to parental authority and wed a partner chosen by a parent. In the unlikely event that such acts of submission had evolutionary consequences for humans today, the effects would be felt in both sexes.

          You are also assuming that arranged marriages were always arranged by fathers, which is not correct.

          We know from recent centuries of our own history that both men and women were often able to select their marriage partners. Family pressures and parental authority could affect (and could often determine) marriage choices, but choice has been an important feature of Western cultures for many centuries. Our social history, in that respect as in many others, is significantly different from the social history of Islam.

          **

          Just to be clear, I’m disagreeing with a few sentences in what you wrote above; I pretty much share your opinion of Jordan Peterson. I’m surprised that people on the alt-right are wasting their time listening to him. It’s great that he is successfully conveying a few important truths that the current-year mainstream now refuses to acknowledge, but since they are obvious truths, none of us should need to hear them from him. We don’t need to be told that there are two sexes, for example.

          Peterson is basically a defender of commonsense and conventional wisdom circa AD 2000, and that makes him a right-wing “radical” in the academic world.

          • Modeste
            Posted March 4, 2018 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

            “If you mean that _during_ neolithic times women did not make their own choices in the selection of their life-partners, you are only taking a guess.”

            Well, that’s precisely the reason why I used “since”, not “during”. Indeed, our knowledge of social organization in early Neolithic societies is too poor to allow for any conclusions. Some major thinkers (Gimbutas, Eliade) seem to have considered the Eurasian Bronze Age as the typical time-frame for the rise of Patriarchy. I tend to see it as much older (there is, e.g., genetic evidence of early Neolithic colonists peacefully “conquering” the women of surrounding indigenous hunter-gatherer tribes – a mechanism that implies that they were able of keeping their own females “at home” while fecundating the more labile females of early “open societies”).

            “If you mean that women in the past often had their marriage partners selected for them, then the same could be said of men. If two fathers get together to arrange the marriage of their children, and each father has the power to compel the marriage, then neither the bride nor the groom has made a choice. Both men and women, in this scenario, would submit to parental authority and wed a partner chosen by a parent. In the unlikely event that such acts of submission had evolutionary consequences for humans today, the effects would be felt in both sexes.
            You are also assuming that arranged marriages were always arranged by fathers, which is not correct.”

            I guess all you have to do is replace “always” by “most of the time” to reach an adequate description of my assumptions – which, under that form at least, might be correct.
            Also take into account that mating is by far not the only domain in which men have been traditionally trained for decision-making, while women were educated (and partly selected) for obedience.

            “We know from recent centuries of our own history that both men and women were often able to select their marriage partners. Family pressures and parental authority could affect (and could often determine) marriage choices, but choice has been an important feature of Western cultures for many centuries. Our social history, in that respect as in many others, is significantly different from the social history of Islam.”

            Indeed. And so is our birth rate. I’m not trying to be apologetic about Islam in any way. I just have to observe that most present-day Islamic societies (for a number of reasons including, but not limited to Islam) are anthropologically closer than the West to what I call “mainstream Sapiens Sapiens”.
            IMO, Islamization will HAVE to happen (Houellebecq’s scenario for that seems rather convincing to me), as a final and external critique of Western modernity, UNLESS we prove able of a radical internal critique, which definitely includes reconsidering the role of women in society.

        • Posted March 5, 2018 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

          On March 4, 2018 at 5:45 pm Modeste wrote:

          that’s precisely the reason why I used “since”, not “during”…

          Selection for psychological traits, traits that in your argument became defining features of a sex, doesn’t occur in short time spans, so excluding the Neolithic is a problem for what you’re claiming. That’s why I wondered whether you meant “since the end of the Neolithic” or “during the Neolithic.”

          What you are calling female submissiveness could be interpreted as a comparative lack of aggression. That men are more aggressive than women is easily accounted for by our primate origins and men’s long history as hunters. It is in no way surprising that on average women are less aggressive (and therefore more submissive) than men, so we don’t need to fancifully transform Western social history into a sustained breeding program designed to create docile women. A feminist might find that convincing, but we shouldn’t.

          In any case, white women are comparatively unsubmissive, and have been for many centuries, so if there was such a breeding program, it didn’t work.

          Islamization will HAVE to happen … as a final and external critique of Western modernity, UNLESS we prove able of a radical internal critique

          That’s an interesting thought. I don’t think I agree, but it’s interesting.

          which definitely includes reconsidering the role of women in society.

          If we want to “reconsider the role of women,” which would entail also reconsidering the role of men, we should do it without hostile over-generalizations.

          Almost everyone reading this, I would guess, agrees that feminism has been a disaster. But there is no reason, simply because we dislike feminism, to treat half of our population as some inferior class of humanity, mentally incapable of making decisions and forming judgments.

          the rise of Patriarchy

          “Patriarchy,” if the word is used (or misused) to mean something like “men have most of the power,” is a feature of most (probably all) human societies. It didn’t ever “rise,” in my opinion.

          • Jaego
            Posted March 5, 2018 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

            Women’s voting has been a disaster – always tending towards the silly like prohibition and of course, the Liberal. Thus we have seen the rise of the Single Mother with the State as the Husband. They don’t have to deal with regular men anymore. Unless we radically change, we will not be able to stave off Islam and the rising Tide of Color.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted March 6, 2018 at 12:57 am | Permalink

            Prohibition was sound policy. I would go back to it in a heartbeat.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance