All That Matters

The Origin

I have a theory about how the political correctness meme, which basically defines current Western mentality and politics, began. My understanding is that it was a simple drive for profits and that three factors initiated it:

1 – Over the past several decades, women have been studying more, working, climbing the professional ladder, taking care of themselves and their own finances. Thus, having money of their own to spend, they became a relevant and important segment of the market;

2 – Black people tend to reproduce more and sooner than everyone else, which has been steadily increasing their representation as a percentage of the population in Western societies. Thus, by their sheer number, they became a relevant and important segment of the market;

3 – Gay people, as a rule, have no children, which leaves them with a lot more money than heterosexuals to spend. Once homosexuality was decriminalized, gay marriage allowed, etc., they sprang out of their closets and went on shopping sprees. Thus, they became a relevant and important segment of the market as well.

Large companies noticed those changes and started adapting their marketing strategies, focusing more and more on women, black, and gay people, and at the same time less and less on white men, who already own most of what they want and need.

Media vehicles rely on advertisements for profits, so they started favoring those three groups in any way they could, biasing their productions and news deliveries to make their clients (the advertising companies) happier and their own pockets heavier.

Watching “empowered women,” black people whose “lives matter,” and garish homosexuals 24/7 on the TV, people in general started believing it all meant more than rich people trying to get even richer. That created a political issue.

Millennials and Gen Zs were increasingly brainwashed throughout their lives into believing short-haired women wearing men’s clothes, drag queens, and mixed-race couples are the rule rather than the exception, and a standard to be pursued rather than an aberration to be avoided. This turned the issue into an actual problem.

Socialists took advantage of this whole phenomenon and started defending those three groups of people in everything they could, turning them into guaranteed votes for the socialist cause. Together, they all started pushing for and in fact managed to acquire more rights for themselves than anyone else has. And this made the problem serious.

Our brainwashed youngsters grew up to create Facebook, Twitter, and other meme-spreading platforms. Making billions of dollars at an early age by selling stocks of companies that provide a disservice to society to greedy Wall Street speculators who couldn’t possibly care less about their clients’ assets, those kids became famous and worshiped – after all, who doesn’t want to become a billionaire before they are 25?

Such Zuckerbergers were considered visionaries on top of everything else. They were given free rein over their companies and retained direct control of these, even after their businesses went public along with their disturbing practices. Their personal views were allowed to guide the social networks they had just created, and those folks all share the exact same opinion: that whoever makes the most noise is right (despite the fact that smart people tend to be the quietest).

Being young, rich, idolized, and brainwashed since childhood, those social-media TED-talkers immediately set off to impose their profit-driven, “politically correct” views on all users of their platforms, censoring anyone with a divergent opinion without legal or moral bounds. With traditional and social media both brainwashing people in the wrong direction and silencing any and all reasonable voices as much as they possibly can, they’ve guaranteed that anyone being born in the West will be infected with the disturbing and disruptive meme of political correctness.

To top it all, Hollywood set off to grab its piece of the cake and started writing for, casting, and putting into protagonist roles as many women, gay, and black people as they could. The American propaganda engine is now run by a socialist hub of twisted morality, fiercely imposing the leftist agenda on anyone who just wants to sit down and watch a good movie (incidentally making these very scarce).

That’s my understanding of how the whole “political correctness” notion was born and developed. And none of those responsible for it seems to have ever considered where their actions were taking us other than as far as their bank accounts stretch. The path of greed has always been a bloody one, but people never tire of following it.

This whole thing started as a simple money-grabbing scheme, conducted by the same old greedy bastards that have always run everything. Nowadays, literal psychopaths are deliberately chosen to run every single company that has stocks in the market, and those guys don’t give a damn about how much damage they cause to anyone or anything (fun fact: I always assumed China developed it’s current technology by reverse-engineering Western products manufactured there, but I was wrong. I recently learned that our psychos actually handed all Western technology to China for free, just to gain access to the Chinese market and factories, turn a quick profit, and look good in front of their companies’ boards and shareholders). Those folks don’t take the non-financial consequences of their actions into consideration at all, because they simply don’t care. And thanks to those sick people, the Western magnates’ greedy schemes backfired this time: by putting in charge those who seek the highest profits at any cost, they ended up empowering their worst enemies. Our tycoons’ insatiable thirst for money turned women, black, and gay people into a mass of maneuver for socialists, igniting a political revolution that aims to destroy everything they’ve built and steal everything they have (and they also turned China into a superpower). And the rest of us got unwillingly caught in the middle of it. Whereas we have all always been ripped-off and exploited by “the wealthy capitalist,” now we also have our rights trimmed to the stem while those three trending groups’ (women, black people and gays) keep multiplying. And if that wasn’t bad enough, we are now also overtaxed by our governments and forced to freely give most of what we work our entire lives to have to the “poor” who still form the core electoral base of the socialists.

The political correctness meme entails shielding groups of people behind words such as “racism,” “homophobia” and “misogyny;” it disregards merit and actually eats away at equality via DEI policies; it erodes society by encouraging acts and behaviors that ignore what is reasonable and fair. By paving the way with those words to reach such ends, it succeeded in ruining everything. And while hiding under an anti-hate banner, social justice warriors only increase hatred, because this is the logical and inevitable consequence of curtailing and violating other people’s natural rights.

The only purpose the political correctness meme serves is to put a handful of socialists in charge and keep them there, so that they can steal everything from all of us. In the long run, this idiocy doesn’t do the rest of us any good – regardless of our gender, sexual orientation or skin color.

It’s high time we rid ourselves of this populist, destructive notion.

Our “Specieses”

I don’t know about you, but when I was in school I was taught that a species is defined as such by whether the offspring of two mating animals is fertile or not. If two animals copulate and their offspring is able to reproduce, those animals are considered members of the same species, even if of different races. If their offspring is infertile, those mating animals are considered members of different species.

Well, it turns out that that definition is inaccurate.

Though we are (or at least were, in my time) taught that as if it was carved in stone, it isn’t. There’s still debate among biologists as to what defines a species, because the fertility of two animals’ offspring, like anything else, isn’t either zero or 100% – it can be anything in between, depending on the genetic differences between the pair of breeders.

That’s relevant because the fertility rate of a mixed-race human couple’s offspring is lower than that of a single-race’s2, which raises the question: are white, Asian, black, Indian, and people of other ethnicities just members of different races, or of different species?

What about apes? And hominid aliens?

You get to choose. Since there’s no clear line drawn by nature itself, you can draw your own. If you don’t, someone else will in your stead, and they’ll do so based on their political ideologies. You will always have scientific grounds to contest it, though.

While verifying that, I also learned that the dissolution rate of exogamous (mixed-race) marriages is also higher than that of endogamous (single-race) ones3. It is hypothesized that this happens mostly due to cultural differences between people of different races, which I agree with (so long as the word “mostly” is in there). Still, the empirical evidence we have suggests that matching people who don’t match doesn’t work very well, neither genetically nor socially.

What a surprise.

Regardless of whether we are all members of the same species or not, and even though we have much in common with each other, we are all different people – we don’t look alike, we behave differently, and we come from different places, in different shapes and colors.

Despite what some like to claim, a person’s physical characteristics, such as skin color and physiognomy, are indicators of what to expect from them, because they define said person as a member of a certain group. People belonging to the same one tend to have similar physical traits due to living in the same environment, reproducing among themselves, practicing the same activities and adopting similar lifestyles.

Those physical traits work as an indicator of both a person’s genes and their culture. The second is what matters the most – a group’s moral values, traditions, habits, etc. – but the first is not as unimportant as some like to claim.

It takes a long time for us to assimilate and adapt to our own culture, to the one we are born into. We are raised in and molded by it; we have to learn it. Most of us are not willing or even capable to undergo that whole process a second time if/when joining or interacting with people who have different values, who speak a different language and live in a foreign reality. And different cultures clash. What is adored by a group of people may be shunned by another. What is encouraged by some may be considered a crime by others. One people’s ways may lead to social, economic and technological developments, while another’s may lead to zealotry, thieving, enslavement, wide-spread corruption, civil war and anarchy.

Being born and raised in a nurturing environment, to a good family, and as part of a society that encourages and supports that which ought to improve human life seem to be the most important factors in defining how any one of us turns out. But much of what/who we are is also tied to our DNA, and each group of people’s genes evolved in particular ways, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to make each [definable] one of them intrinsically different from the others.

The genetic difference between people from different races is minimal, but its relevance doesn’t necessarily match that percentage. We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and the remaining 1% clearly makes quite a difference. We share 99.9% with other human beings, but our alleles – variations of the same gene that, for instance, determine an individual’s type and color of hair, blood type, and propensity to develop certain diseases – can vary up to 7%, and they are anything but irrelevant.

Our genetic material determines how our brain develops, our height, hormonal production, appearance, intellectual and motor capabilities, how much fat our bodies accumulate and where, how much our muscles can grow, etc. And members of the same ethnic group have more genes and alleles in common. Genetically speaking, it is our alleles that define different races of human beings (though our official, socially-inclined definition takes culture into account as well).

Scientists, as you have probably noticed, tend to downplay the importance of genetic differences when talking about different human beings. If they didn’t, they would be called “racists!” and persecuted by the left half of our society. When the people who are supposed to know better than anyone else about something feel coerced not to share the truth of their findings, the rest of us are left oblivious to it. And this includes me, so I’m forced to infer the true importance of the genetic differences between human beings of different races.

Following my own reasoning, I say our genetic differences are not as important as our cultural ones because there’s evidence to support this: what have Stephen Hawking’s, Richard Feynman’s, Niels Bohr’s, Alexander, The Great’s, Napoleon’s, Abraham Lincoln’s, or any other “accomplished figure’s” children accomplished? (Note: I don’t know if all of them had children, and the worth of their respective accomplishments is debatable.)

In theory, those people’s progenies had the genetic material required to follow in their parents’ footsteps – to do something extraordinary. But they all turned out like anyone else. I’ve never heard anything about any of them, so I assume they all became normal folks, leading mostly normal lives, doing nothing worthy of particular note.

All those historical figures weren’t “great” because of their genes. They were extraordinarily successful thanks to pure chance; thanks to appropriate circumstances and a long series of inevitable accidents (which nonetheless involve being born in the right group/community/country). Their genes were part of what led to their accomplishments, but not the decisive one.

At the same time, our genes and alleles are far from irrelevant because someone could have, as a deliberately exaggerated example, a genetic propensity to enjoy the taste of human meat while also hating any other food’s. If an allele can cause that, then the issue is much greater. And I don’t have to tell you what cannibalism leads to (obviously, to no desirable outcome).

Some good genes/alleles can also have bad consequences, and vice versa. For instance, black people in general have a higher bone density and more muscular mass than the rest of the human race. That’s a good thing. But as previously established, when people have any kind of advantage they tend to use it to abuse others. This means that, by having some physical superiority, black people have a tendency to physically attack others for no good reason, and also to focus on physical activities rather than on intellectual ones. And both of those things are highly undesirable, because they are non-constructive. In practice, having a group of people physically stronger than others is detrimental for human society (although simply keeping people of different races apart can mitigate this issue).

Light-skinned people get first-degree burns if they stand under the sun for more than 30 minutes or so. It sucks. But whiter skin requires considerably less sunlight to synthesize vitamin D, meaning white folks don’t need to spend much time outside. This allows us to dedicate more time to intellectual tasks and to keep our sanity in cold environments (when most of the human body must be covered by clothes, thus having almost no contact with sunlight).

We also have the Asians who, due to a genetic deficiency in the aldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme, get flushed when they drink alcohol, which isn’t good. But thanks to that, they avoid drinking, which leads to much fewer cases of alcoholism among Asians than among people of other ethnicities and, as another consequence, they also rarely throw up in someone else’s car or run people over while driving theirs, which are both good things for everyone.

The difference in genes and alleles between human beings can and do have a much greater importance than the simple percentage variation found between them leads us to believe, because every allele can lead to relevant consequences of its own.

Let me explain why our cultural and genetic differences really matter.

Let’s say that our objective, as a species, is scientific advancement. For that, we need intelligence – everything in the universe works logically, and intelligence is the capability to identify and apply this natural coherence to our thoughts and actions. “Intelligence” includes many different skills, such as being able to store and recall information, to accurately picture something in one’s mind, to quickly make mathematical calculations without the need of external aides, to organize ideas in a clear and effective way, to transmit these ideas efficiently, etc.

With that assumed goal in mind, there is a desirable set of genetic material and behavioral (cultural) patterns that will make achieving it much easier. And not only easier, but those traits are probably necessary for our objective to be achieved.

Having resilient bones, accurate and fast movements, or more strength are all positive and, in principle, desirable genetic attributes. But those cause social problems on their own, and they are only [somewhat] useful in heavy manual labor, which is nearly obsolete now that machines created by those with a superior intellect can do far more than any man.

If we have a group who is genetically and culturally predisposed towards a higher intelligence and a second group that has a predisposition for physical prowess, one of these groups will, invariably, achieve our desired goal much faster than the other (again: if this one ever even manages to). So we must have a proper objective in mind; we must take our differences into account; and we must favor individuals and groups that are likely to realize that goal. And we should eliminate the others, because these exist only to hinder the first ones.

There is always a relative genetic/cultural superiority between different groups of people when any specific goal is taken into account. And we do have goals – we may not have established them very clearly, but the proper ones are out there, somewhere. Regardless of whether we are aware of them or not, or of how long it may take us to become so, such goals exist and we must find and pursue them.

There’s a technical term for acknowledging that our differences matter, and that some of us are objectively better than others; a term for simply understanding that this is how our universe works. According to the dictionary, the word for it is “racism.”

Dumbing that all down just to make it perfectly clear, try the following test:

Choose the bird you believe can fly farther.

Bird 1: A Greater Cormorant.

Bird 2: A Flightless Cormorant.

Hint: Pay attention to their names.

If you chose the Flightless Cormorant, you are retarded. If you chose the Greater one, you are a racist.

Welcome to the team!

You probably already had your mind made (or made for you) about racial issues. And you may believe that mixing everyone up will lead to our species keeping the best of all human genes/alleles. That’s what I was told as a child, and I believed it for a long time. If you don’t put any thought into it, it seems plausible. Why not?

Well, there is a why.

Initially, that idea may seem reasonable. Stronger genes are, by definition, those that increase our odds of survival, and if we have both of our parents’ “best survival genes” our odds of surviving are better than their individual ones which, in turn, should lead to us reproducing more than them and our superior genes propagating further. So far, so good. But there’s a catch.

For starters, the odds of someone inheriting any of their parents’ genes is “random.” Mostly it’s a 50/50 chance, meaning that even if those parents have ten children it’s still possible none of these will inherit any of their desirable characteristics. And we also have dominant and recessive alleles, with respectively higher or lower than average chances of being expressed (meaning “to have practical effects”). So how does natural evolution decides which gene/allele is the best? How does it know what our species needs and deliberately encourages it?

It doesn’t.

Not all desirable alleles are dominant, and not all undesirable alleles are recessive, meaning that inheriting and expressing all of the best alleles available is extremely unlikely. The odds of a desirable recessive allele being expressed are low, increased considerably if both parents have it. Meanwhile, the odds of inheriting and expressing an undesirable dominant allele start at 50%, and yet are nullified if neither parent has it. That means there’s only a small chance of good recessive alleles having effect if we randomly mix people up, and a guaranteed chance to eliminate bad alleles (recessive or dominant) if we don’t mix the people carrying these with anyone else.

The outcome of mixing random people up isn’t necessarily beneficial. It often isn’t, and it’s definitely not ideal.

As a second point, natural evolution – merging DNAs at random and seeing which genes/alleles survive thanks to blind luck – is inadequate for us. First, because it simply no longer applies, since we created and constantly change the environment we live in, making it so that there’s no stable standard for us to adapt to. Second, because we already tamper with this kind of evolution, for example, when our governments subsidize people who cannot sustain themselves, deliberately propagating genes that, in theory, should be eradicated.