Amerika

Go on a camping trip or a long orienteering hike, sail a boat, climb a mountain, or even just spend a night in the woods. You will be reminded that from weather to creatures, nature wants to kill you. It is also full of hidden pitfalls from delicious toxic mushrooms to quicksand.

That is why when we talk about naturalism on this site, we do not mean “nature pacifism.” Naturalism includes the recognition that nature wants to kill us as part of the Darwinian natural selection process; only those who are the most alert, sane, healthy, intelligent, and good should survive and the winner takes all.

Genetically the winner taking all is the nature of time. Whoever survives becomes the next generation; everyone else ceases to exist as the years roll by. Even at a simpler level, the creature that is most competent tends to find a niche and prosper, while those without niches get by at a subsistence level.

Kamala (pronounced “¡qué mala!”) Harris launched her new slogan “We Are Not Going Back,” but she misunderstands likely history. We do not know what happened in the past; we are detective archaeologists trying to understand what was probable from the limited data we have, which makes us prone to bias.

For example, the classic mistake of historians and archaelogists is to project too much of the present time on the past; in this case, “project” means to fling our categorical framework forward and then rationalize all of the data we do have to fit. A thesis in search of data, not data in search of a thesis, in other words.

¡Qué Mala! and her Communist crew of street people and neurotic urbanites may not realize this, but everything they argue for is old, very old. Archaeologists for a long time argued over whether early primitive hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies were egalitarian or not; that is, did they share and share alike?

Data was found for both sides. In my view, this shows us exactly what we would expect from human psychology: the divide between Leftists and Realists has existed since the dawn of time. It started out this way.

The first humans probably existed in extended familial groups with a few trusted outsiders, sort of like monkey troupes do today. They were not hunter-gatherers or agricultural per se but really undifferentiated civilizations. During the growth season, they were farmers; during winter, they foraged for roots; otherwise they hunted.

Such civilizations had to face an immediate question of “who eats?” because they were hunting big game. Not only was it a group effort to kill the animal and haul it home, but the meat spoiled, so you might as well feed everyone once you are after the fact of the kill.

On the other hand, if you fed everyone, you accumulated people who were not good hunters. Get too many of those and you find you have a few guys who do all the hunting while everyone else eats and does little. Eventually they stop doing their part, which is the foraging and planting, and the hunters starve too.

At some point, one group of hunters looked at another troupe with the same problem, found some women there, and absconded with them to start a new civilization. They married the best option at the time, but they were stuck with useless people, so they moved on… was it moral? No, but in strict Darwinian terms, it probably produced modern humans.

This new group had an iron rule of its own which was not “give food to everyone” but “give food to everyone who is useful.” If you gathered, you ate; if you farmed, you ate; if you made cloth or pottery, you ate. Mothers and kids ate. At some point, boys became men, which meant they had to hunt to eat.

This was the basis of modern humanity. Instead of sharing the food equally among the good and the bad, it shared with the good and kicked out the bad, which caused a massive upward evolution within a short period of time, producing a completed new species in the geological equivalent of the blink of an eye.

Modern humans embraced realism. Results mattered more than intentions, so you reward the useful and let the useless starve. Older forms of hominid followed the egalitarian pattern of feeding everyone, so their societies went through boom-bust cycles in which they fed too many people, the hunters quit, and then everyone starved.

We see two veins of humanity through this thought experiment. The Leftist vein are the older hominids; they feed everyone, and as a result are never stable and always penalize the useful. This keeps their civilizations primitive and at subsistence level, which is what nature wants; remember, nature wants to kill us so the weak stay limited in power.

The Realist vein are those who make everything good. They recognize the Iron Law of nature: all things — ideas, objects, individuals, groups, genes, organisms — act only in their own self-interest alone. If you refuse to reward anything but effective self-interest, you eliminate the parasites who otherwise steal and cheat in self-interest.

Most likely early civilizations throttled between two extremes. They would be Realists until they got fat and happy, then all the neurotics would come out and do an interpretive dance, talk about the plight of the poor, and the civilization would decide to go with the Leftist idea of feeding everyone, and would self-destruct shortly afterward.

That too is part of the plan nature has for us. It kills the weak and plows under their civilizations. That is, every time a civilization fails, its members disperse to other groups, and they bring with them new genes. This creates a norming effect across the region, and is how you produce a species, but not an elite species.

The Realists on the other hand are eugenicists by nature. They feed the good, starve the bad, and probably do their best to drive the semi-useful elsewhere. They want only useful people. As a result, they create high-IQ groups that can think both creatively and analytically, therefore can adapt to anything. They are a different species to the rest of humanity.

Leftists will tell you this is cruel. Their ideal is not hunting, since they are bad hunters, but farming because it is peaceful and they are bad fighters, so they fear conflict, too. They want everyone to have the same size patch of land with the same sun and water so that everyone has the same amount to eat.

In the part of our brains that is still monkey, this makes sense to us. Everyone has enough, so there is no conflict, and everyone gets along. It is efficient and stable. Every middle manager in the world desires the same thing, to see every employee at an identical cubicle hammering away at the same work. It “feels good” to our monkey-lizard brains.

It is also part of the trap nature has set for us. Remember, nature wants to kill us, or rather to kill the weak because only by filtering out the incomplete do you get a set of the complete alone. Take any human group, kill the useless, and the next generation is smarter and better; this is what nature wants to do with its eugenic filter of Darwinism.

Imagine a different society where people barter with what they produce. The guy who is really good at farming buys more land and has a bigger farm, which means that everyone has more food. Society can advance further, and the guys who were really bad at farming got thrown out and had to find another way to survive.

That society is not just wealthier, but saner, than the other. It does not have the radical boom-bust cycles caused by giving out free food. It has a very simple rule — feed only the useful — as opposed to a simplistic rule, “feed everyone,” that entails thousands of little exceptions, footnotes, variations, and other red tape.

Is that why we call them “Reds,” because they are the red tape people?

When QuéMala Harris says “we are not going back,” she means the opposite. She wants to take us back to the early days before we were modern humans, when we shared everything and regularly self-destructed as a result, because her goal is to make us “equal,” which means reversing the evolution that made us into modern humans.

QuéMala wants a society of the universal grey race. Everyone is part Caucasian, Asian, and African; no one has distinctive heritage. Everyone has the same four hundred square foot condominium, works the same level of job, and has the same amount of wealth (except the bureaucrats, but she will get to that… later, much later).

All that evolving, learning, and discipline stuff we did in order to have a functional civilzation? Puh-leaze. We do not need that, says QuéMala. We already have all the cool stuff like air conditioning and color televisions. We need to redistribute the wealth, make everyone equally poor, and enjoy doing nothing.

It is the triumph of the useless eaters over the useful hunters, and really, it is the only way the useless eaters can feel good about themselves. In the end, our politics is about feeling, or rather not interrupting the feeling of being in control that narcissists have, since all useless eaters seem to be narcissists.

QuéMala wants you to think that Donald Trump will take us back to a previous time, but in fact, it is the Harris plan that takes us back to the dawn of history. Trump wants us to move forward with being modern humans instead. No wonder this offends the criminals, insane, promiscuous, and unwell that make up the Democrat electorate!

Tags: natural selection, naturalism, nature pacifism, que mala harris, street people