Marginalization as Obscurantism

The pseudoscientists use the words ‘marginalization’ and ‘marginalization’. From Social Exclusion (on the SJW Encyclopedia):

Social exclusion, or social marginalization, is the social disadvantage and relegation to the fringe of society. It is a term used widely in Europe and was first used in France.[1] It is used across disciplines including education, sociology, psychology, politics and economics.

Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or entire communities of people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration within that particular group[2] (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process).

Alienation or disenfranchisement resulting from social exclusion can be connected to a person’s social class, race, skin color, educational status, childhood relationships,[3]living standards, or personal choices in fashion. Such exclusionary forms of discrimination may also apply to people with a disability, minorities, LGBT people, drug users,[4] institutional care leavers,[5] the elderly and the young. Anyone who appears to deviate in any way from perceived norms of a population may thereby become subject to coarse or subtle forms of social exclusion.

The outcome of social exclusion is that affected individuals or communities are prevented from participating fully in the economic, social, and political life of the society in which they live.[6]

Marginalization is an overloaded term used by social pseudoscientists to frame the group under discussion as victims. Marginalization is a process that is performed upon someone. This brings up the concept of agency: the argument is that victim classes lack agency (the ability to act). Marginalization is such a term that removes agency from the groups under discussion. This is the loading. If the victim class lacks agency, then logically it follows that there are agents acting upon the class (the victimizers). Marginalization is defined by the social pseudoscientists as a form of victimization or oppression, which is the process of an agent acting upon those who lack agency.

These loaded terms: oppression, victimization, marginalization are obscurantist techniques: they are an attempt to hide something? But what?


Humans can be roughly divided into classes. We build social hierarchies based on these classes. Class or caste is a common feature of many societies today, but in the West there was a reaction to aristocracy. The middle and lower classes murdered their upper classes (the aristocracy) and then attempted justify this murder with a lie: the denial of the existence of class.

Marxist theory contains an attack on class and advocates re-organization of every aspect of culture and society to remove any differences and achieve the Utopian Classless Society. The Founding Fathers sought to create a form related to a classless society, a middle class society. This was the American project: building a new country on a new continent out of only the middle class and higher. In the New World, more than a 1/3 of the newcomers returned home to Europe, they were the lower classes who could not produce on their own. The Aristocracy of the Old World sought to reduce the numbers of the lower class through selective breeding. This was achieved through manorialism, where only those capable of production (the middle class and above) were granted land, which was essentially equivalent to being granted breeding rights.

The Marxists attempt to achieve their goal by lying: there are no classes. The Founders attempted to achieve their goals through a combination of lying and incentive: all men are created equal and no welfare for layabouts. The Aristocracy attempted to achieve their goals through a combination of lying and incentive: we have the divine right to rule and these are our rules.

Quick Note on All Men Are Created Equal

Keep in mind that the Founders were reacting against Rule of Man (autarchy)(discretionary rule). What they sought was Rule of Law. Any system lacking universal standing, meaning fair and rules based treatment under law, which instead has discretionary rule for some and law for others, then that system cannot be called Rule of Law. For RoL to exist, then all members must be given treatment based on institutionalized rules (law). I believe the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ is an attempt to justify universal standing using religio-moral language, because the Founders at the time lacked the ability to articulate universal standing and its fundamental necessity for the creation of institutionalized order: Rule of Law.

Stop Lying About Class

It’s time to end the lies about class. Classes exist. We have the science. We can measure IQ, which is a rough approximate of class. All men are not created equal: We can create rule of law without lying. The Utopian classless society is an unachievable dream.

Rough Table of Classes (Curt Doolittle’s)

140’s revolutionize INTELLECTUAL (Professors)
130’s synthesize and communicate UPPER (CEO’s etc)
120’s solve and design UPPER MIDDLE (engineers, scientists)
110’s calculate and organize MIDDLE CLASS (white collar workers)
100’s interpret repair and operate (lower middle upper working managerial clsss)
90’s operate, report, but not repair.( midddle working class)
80’s operate (middle working class)
70’s dig ditches and clean. (lower class)

<70 = underclass

The lower and underclass are not ‘marginalized’. They have not been victimized. They have not been oppressed. They are not lacking agency and been acted upon to be placed into a lower position. They were born as lower and underclass.

There are no ‘marginalized peoples’. There are only those classes who cannot function within the system of production and which must be addressed in some way in order to make a functional society.

There is no ‘systematic blocking of access to rights and opportunities’, there is a biological inability on the part of the lower classes to participate meaningfully in the system of production.

Ending The Game

Of course, the end goal of the use of social pseudoscience is always the same: parasitism. To use words to extract resources from society at a discount (it beats working for a living). It doesn’t have to be this way. We can recognize the existence of class and then deal with it. There is no shame in being born in the lower classes, just as there is no shame being born in the upper classes.

The Founders and the Aristocracy were on the right track: the goal is to create a society made up of middle and upper classes (minimizing the lower class components through incremental suppression). This is the upward development of the species. This is true progress: increasing the genetic capital of a population through selective breeding. This is the domestication of man. It is self-directed evolution. It is transcendence. (Note: this strategy is available to all the peoples of the world. Africans and Arabs have just as much genetic potential as the Northern peoples.)

It’s time to be honest. The strategy of the West is that of transcendence. The average Western high IQ is the result of self-directed evolution, of the suppression of the breeding of the lower classes. The strategy of the modern ‘progressives’ is inverted, where the result is to suppress the breeding of the middle and upper classes, to redistribute their wealth to the lower classes, and to import millions of lower classes for short term political gain. This is a suicidal stratagem, and one that the men of the West have every incentive to prevent, by any means necessary. This is the crux of the current political turmoil, as millions of Westerns begin to intuitively grasp the situation. The modern progressive strategy will have the result of devolving the West back into savagery, and could potentially devolve it into a new Dark Age. Europe was on the cusp of an industrial revolution when the last Dark Age overtook it. It took a thousand years to recuperate. A new Dark Age is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Toxo and Marx

It’s interesting to watch Sapolsky in this video describing how toxoplasmosis can rewire the brain, shutting down amygdala fear response, keeping in mind the discussion of free will versus biological determinism.


From Discovery, Parasite Infection Linked to Road Rage:

People who display frequent bouts of extreme, impulsive anger, such as road rage, are more than twice as likely to be infected with a common parasite than are individuals who do not exhibit such explosive behavior, according to a new study.

“Our work suggests that latent infection with the Toxoplasma gondii parasite may change brain chemistry in a fashion that increases the risk of aggressive behavior,” senior author Emil Coccaro of the University of Chicago said in a press release.

Free will? Knowing that our brains may be rewired to alter our perception of the world around us, it tends to cast more and more doubt upon the idea of free will.

This just in from Curt Doolittle:

On this one point, Locke was Wrong and Hobbes was right: as a member of a polity, man is reducible to a ‘mechanical’ engine fed drugs by his genes as reward and punishment for advancing their interests. And those interests are advanced through acquisition, retention and reproduction of all sorts of things.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy the fulfillment of our genes interests. It’s the whole purpose of existence.

To make the most of it.


This further confirms to me the theory proposed in my Language and Genetic Self-Interest piece. We are moist robots and we are wired to serve the interests of our genes (until a pesky and precocious parasite like toxoplasmosis figures out how to rewire our neuro-pathways). We imagine that we are freely thinking thoughts and making arguments which are simply logical. We are doing as we are programmed. Our ancestors found a competitive advantage in truth and logic, so the machinery of truth and logic is built into our people. We are acting in service of our genes and our genetic self-interest (our reproductive strategy). We found a competitive advantage in universalized belief systems, and so we are prone to universalism. We found competitive advantage in reducing our ethnocentrism, so we are prone to openness to other ethnicities.

The men of the West used truth and logic, universalism, and reduced ethnocentrism to build large, productive orders of humans. There is a lot of accumulated capital. Of course, just as toxoplasmosis exists and can parasitically rewire our brains, other parasites exist and can rewire and hijack our systems. Marxism is such a hijacking. People with a parasitic reproductive strategy and a high-verbal IQ can manipulate our brains by repeating half-truths with high frequency and high volume. All they needed was majority control over a centralized communications network to reinforce their messages. Combine this with the incentives of democracy and you have a recipe for disaster: a machine built to eat the accumulated capital of the West.

The internet has broken the monopoly control over the communications network. We are in the process of rewiring ourselves (see ‘deprogramming’ in relationship to cults). We are building antibodies to the parasites. This is what I mean when I talk about being a ‘memetic warrior’. I mean engaging in the work of deprogramming the cult members who share our reproductive strategy. We can never convert those who do not share our reproductive interests (incompatible ethnicities and to some extent even our women). We can only change their calculation of genetic self-interest.

That’s what I think, which I think must mean that I intuit it to be in my genetic self-interests. Luckily, I share genetic self-interests with the most dominant men on the planet. That gives me hope.

Females Can’t Into Territory

Territoriality is hardwired into males, but not females. I’m talking primates here.

In the video above, we see that is the male chimps which patrol, making a circuit of their territory, defining and defending the resources within the territory, including the females. Only males engage in this behavior, which suggests that the behavior is selected for only in males.

Why would the behavior only be selected for in males? From Chimps, Too, Wage War and Annex Rival Territory:

When the enemy is encountered, the patrol’s reaction depends on its assessment of the opposing force. If they seem to be outnumbered, members of the patrol will break file and bolt back to home territory. But if a single chimp has wandered into their path, they will attack. Enemy males will be held down, then bitten and battered to death. Females are usually let go, but their babies will be eaten.

Notice that the males and infants are killed, while the females are generally released. We see this behavior in other animals, such as lions which fight for territory. Once the lion has killed or defeated and run off his rival, he will often kill his rival’s cubs. When chimps kill the infants, this frees the female from having to provide resources to the infant and if she is nursing her milk will dry up. This then allows her to go into estrus sooner. The rival male chimps genes (the infant) are removed from the competition for resources, and the female can be ready to breed that much sooner.

The males are killed, obviously because they are direct competitors for resources and for the females. Expansion of one group into another group’s territory will necessitate the death of most or all of the adult males.

Either way, the females will be bred by the most aggressive and dominant males. Aggression, dominance and territoriality are selected as the genes of the victors (who display these traits) are propagated. The genes of males who are less aggressive, dominant and unable to hold territory are deleted from the gene pool. In this way, territoriality is hardwired into males.

Females, on the other hand, can best propagate their genes by submitting to the victors, even the ones who killed their infants and their infants’ fathers. In this way, lack of territoriality and loyalty is selected for in females. Those females who adapt and submit have their genes propagated, while those who fight and do not submit are more likely to be killed or die from lack of resources.

Females can’t into territory. 😉

To expand this to humans, we see female defense ministers in Europe and female leaders such as Merkel in Germany. And these women do not appear to be doing a great job defending their territory. Instead, they seem to actually be welcoming the mostly fighting-age male ‘refugees’ into their territory. Why would this be? Because it is in the female nature to submit to the most aggressive, dominant and territorial males. They are hardwired for it.

Why is the Arab invasion of Europe so hard for European males to watch? Because it is the males who will be killed and bred out of existence. Their genes will be deleted from the gene pool, as genes for aggression, dominance and territory are selected. While their women will be bred. But, they will have the consolation of being able to write “At Least He Wasn’t a Racist” on their tombstones, before some Arab knocks it over and pisses on it.

European males around the world, face an existential threat from more aggressive, dominant and territorial males invading their territories. There is a reason that there used to be laws against interracial marriage in European countries, because the dominant males of those territories had institutionalized their control over the women in their territories. Then those dominant males were dethroned by whining females and allowed themselves to be cucked by non-Europeans in the countries that their ancestors had built.

European females are not going to stop the invasion of Europe. Only European males have the evolutionary hard-wiring or the evolutionary incentive to do so. Tolerance is an evolutionary dead-end. Anti-racism is an evolutionary dead-end. In chimps and humans, nature rewards aggression, dominance and territoriality in males, and submission and non-territoriality in females. Sure, we can trade with the rest of the world and cooperate profitably, but only if they stay out of our territory. Any males who come into our territories without our permission are fair game.

Happy hunting, fellas!


To be a good liberal, you have to be a bad scientist

How much longer the debate over Human Biological Diversity can go on in the real world?

In Feb. 2014, in The Harvard Crimson, Sandra Korn called for the end of academic freedom in The Doctrine of Academic Freedom: Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice. Liberals like Korn would rather have ‘justice’ than truth. Of course, don’t we need to know the truth in order to have justice? Perhaps my definition of justice differs from Korn’s. I think she may have coined the term ‘academic justice’, which is equally as Orwellian as ‘social justice’.

Why, in this age of science and technology (and transparency), would she make such an outrageous suggestion? This appears to be an act of desperation. Is the dam about to burst?

Korn: “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?”

Obviously, ‘science’ is subservient to the liberal agenda, at Harvard and elsewhere. Even the eminent Dr. James Watson was purged for not toeing the political line, not for being a bad scientist.

Handel’s Haus list of purges seems to be growing daily.

To be a good liberal, you have to be a bad scientist.