Beyond the Vapor with Robert Stark
Robert Stark talks to Ed Dutton about Woke Eugenics
This is The Stark Truth, hosted by Robert Stark. Brought to you by www.starktruthradio.com. Robert Stark is an American journalist and political commentator. You can read his articles and find out more on robertstark.substack.com. [Music] Robert Stark here. I'm joined here with the Jolly Heretic, Ed Dutton, and we're going to be discussing his new book, "Woke Eugenics." Jolly Heretic, Ed Dutton, great having you back on. Hello, hello, hello. Hello, good to see you again. Good to speak with you again. How's it been going? Excellent, and how have you been? Yes, okay. I went on a holiday to Bulgaria, which was interesting. Obviously, I've just had this book out, "Woke Eugenics, how social justice marks a social Darwinism." I'm also joined here with Francis Nelly. Hi, guys. Nice to talk to you, Dr. Dutton. How you do? How you do? Great. To start things off, can you introduce the thesis of Woke Eugenics? Yeah, I mean, basically, the idea I was talking for many years with this notion of spiteful mutants, so the idea that under weak and Darwinian selection, then you are going to get people who are disgenic, both physically and mentally, because those two things tend to correlate, and they will behave in such a way that they subvert an adaptive society, that they will behave in such a way as to, for example, influence the culture so that people do maladaptive things, like not have children and that sort of thing. But then myself and my colleague, Jerry Rayna Hills, realized that perhaps something very different was happening, which is that under very, very weak and Darwinian selection pressures, you're in a situation where, for genetic reasons, people are becoming sicker and sicker and sicker, they are becoming more and more maladaptive, they're becoming more and more and more probably selfish as well, because we've been selecting across time to be group oriented. So you're getting all of these genetically very, and these things all correlate these psychological traits with being genetically sick, but because of the fruits of civilization, these people can survive, and to some extent, propagate. Now, if that carries on, then eventually you get to a situation where when the next catastrophic event happens, such as a volcanic eruption or meteorite strike or whatever happens to be, then almost all humans are so sick that they die out. Or equally, when civilization collapses from our current barley conditions, which inevitably will, you get to a point where you'll get intensified group selection and your group won't be able to survive against another group and it will be destroyed. So evolution must have something to stop that happening. It must have something that stops humanity going on, getting sicker and sicker and sicker forever until basically nobody is able to even have children and the species just dies, and that is woke people, that is woke people. And so we should see them as altruistic mutants. So essentially what happens is we build up, we select very, very strongly for intelligence or genetic health and whatever under harsh conditions, we build civilization. Civilization massively reduces those harsh Darwinian conditions with the result that people become sicker and sicker and sicker and sicker, but as they, that can't go on forever, or otherwise you're wiped out. Brilliantly, it's like a group level adaptation. Wokeness then hits in where you have these people who are, who are, who have basically validative views, who don't want to have children, who don't want to look out for the interest of their ethnic group, who don't want to look out even for the interest of their species, and they take over the culture and then they persuade people to adopt their way of seeing things and to basically resign from the gene pool. So the result is that wokeness becomes a selection event and the survivors of that selection event are going to be the people that are basically the pre-industrial, normal population, people that are, at least among the more intelligent, it's going to be people who are highly religious, people who are highly ethnocentric, and those things go together with being highly mentally and physically, genetically healthy. So work, work ideology is a group level adaptation which ensures not only the survival of the species, but also one could argue the survival of the ethnic group, the survival of the ethnic, because all that's left once wokeness runs across the society is a group that is going to be highly ethnocentric, highly group selected, highly religious, highly right-wing, everything that woke people despised for genetic reasons, and anyone that is not optimally high in these genetic traits, you know, is more environmentally influenced as it were, is going to be sucked into the woke cult and removed from the gene pool, and the ability to be so influenced is going to be associated with poor genetic health. So it's like a built-in mechanism that ensures we return to genetic health, and it operates at the environmental level as well, because if you look at what's happening at the moment, then the wokeness is bringing about criminality on the street, so we look at the riots and leads recently, it's bringing about the polarization of society into left and right, it's bringing about people who in the old days would perhaps be friends with people that were left-wing and therefore high mutational law, but now they're not, so it's bringing about this genetic polarization, so that wokeness is therefore a kind of angel of death that Darwin has sent, to ensure that, you know, the English people will go back to being ethnocentric and right-wing conservative once again. Is there evidence that shows that the recent wave of wokeness, or you could just make the case wokeness as an extension, continuation of previous waves of the cultural left, which obviously it is, but is there evidence that shows that the recent wave of wokeness is having significant impacts on fertility? Yes, there is data going back, oh, quite a few decades indicating that when you control intelligence, the big predictor of fertility is that you are conservative and that you are religious, and both those things are in the region of about 60% genetic, and the big predictor of sterility is that you are liberal and that you are an atheist. I think what we've had, since the '60s really, particularly since the end of the Cold War, at the cultural level is a kind of runaway individualism, and they discuss with you perhaps when I was last on this show, we each have five moral foundations because we are a group, a pack animal, and we have to rise to the top of the pack in prehistory, or successfully part of our genes. So you have the group-oriented foundations of sanctity versus disgust, of in-group loyalty and of obedience to authority, and you have the individually-oriented foundations of equality, which means that you get your share of the pie, and of harm avoidance, which means you are not harmed, and conservatives are high or five of those foundations, and liberals are only high in the individually-oriented foundations, and so you're going to get what we were selecting for until the international revolution, as we know, were people because it's associated with health, were people that were religious, were people that were conservative. With the weakening of that selection, you're going to get a deviation from what was selected for, i.e. people are going to become more and more and more individually-oriented, more and more left-wing, essentially, and eventually those people, we get a tipping point, a 20% is a tipping point in certain models, and then the society tips over into being individually-oriented, and then eventually you keep competitively signaling, particularly among the more intelligent, who are more socially conformist, you can competitively signal your loyalty to the current system of doing things until it comes up against a war, and that war can be something like a war where it's necessary to have some degree of group orientation, or a disease, or an outbreak, but since the Cold War there's been nothing to stand in the way, and so therefore, by the way, individuals have been allowed to carry on and on and on and on, until you have, you know, bio-Leninism and incompetent people in power, and now people are starting to notice that, yeah, I agree with you, that it's a gradual process, but wokeness is the most extreme manifestation of it, because then you're no longer in any way pushing children in school along the adaptive road map of life, which you were doing even in the '80s, the culture has shifted so much that you're telling boys that it's bad to be boys, and it's okay to become a transsexual, and thus ensure that you can't have children, and all of this kind of stuff, so it's just an extreme manifestation of a longer-term trend. Is fertility much less just genetic for conservatives and liberals, and will this mean that the elite will eventually become more conservative? Yeah, yeah, this is what I argued in my book, The Past, is a future country that come in as a conservative demographic revolution. If you look at just the top quartile of intelligence, then the big predictor of fertility is religiousness and conservatism, and the big predictor of sterility is liberalism and atheism. Now, we are getting less intelligent. Both conservatives and liberals are becoming less intelligent, but liberals are becoming less intelligent more quickly, because liberalism is a bigger predictor when you control of infertility. So the result is that you would expect gradually the percolation up was into positions of power, of sort of Nick Fuentes' type. But this would happen in a context of decline, I suggest. This would happen in a context of civilizational declension, of things going backwards. And this is what Woke-ness is also helping to bring about. Woke-ness is basically fast-tracking the collapse of civilization. Do you seem to be still anti-natalist propaganda primarily impacts liberals? Yes, of course. Well, it primarily impacts people who do not have a genetic, inbuilt genetic desire to have children. And having that desire, being highly pro-natal, seems to be correlated with other things which are conservatives, such as religiosity and conservatism and so forth. But so it becomes a selection event, where if you are highly environmentally controlling for intelligence, if you are highly environmentally sensitive, and if you're left-winged, you're likely to be highly environmentally sensitive, then you will be sucked in, because you've been sucked into, you know, the current thing, then the result is that you will take in, you will imbibe this anti-natalist stuff, and you will be more likely to not have children. Or you will be just genetically left-wing, and therefore self-version, have no desire to have children for that reason, because you're just selfish and don't want to invest anything other than yourself, but you've virtually signal about being kind, which is what little left-wing is about. So it becomes a selection event, but this is the thing. Wokeness is doing a number of things which are positive, which are basically eugenic. They are helping to remove from the gene pool of, let's say, English people, everybody who is not, for genetic reasons, conservative and religious. That's the first thing they're doing. Secondly, by encouraging, for example, people to have relationships with people with different races, well, that's more likely to occur among less intelligent white people. So the less intelligent are being also removed via this process of wokeness from the European gene pool. They're just becoming part of the general non-European immigrant mass. Thirdly, they are bringing about social chaos. They are producing standards of living, more crime, whatever. This makes people more religious than it makes people more conservative. They are bringing about resentment. This makes promoting the incompetent foreigner or whatever. This makes people more religious and more conservative. They are causing a social discord, whereby if you're conservative, you don't have anything to do with anyone that's liberal. This means that conservatives are breeding with conservatives, which makes the children genetically more conservative, and liberals being together with liberals, and not breeding. So it's acting in all of these different ways to ensure a fundamental change in the nature of the remnant European man, such that he goes back to being conservative, and most importantly, because they correlate with the other two genetically healthy, and thus able to survive the next problem which the environment throws at him. There's this ongoing anti-white discrimination in universities in the corporate world, but does that mean that whites who do succeed? There's a higher bar of how exceptionally talented they have to be, or it's either people from existing wealthy backgrounds or middle class people who are exceptionally talented. So does that have an impact of on genetics and the long term? From this perspective, it helps to create resentment. If you create resentment and you make people feel excluded, then people tend to become more religious. So that's one of the things that it does. It helps to create a society of basically right-wing conservatives who break away and develop their own society, their own institutions. So it helps to break up society. It therefore helps to mean that conservatives are going to have less to do with liberals. They're therefore less likely to breed with the liberals, and so it thus propounds a situation where it's only conservatives that are breeding. So that's what that kind of resentment does. As for your question about a higher bar, it's almost certainly true that if you discriminate against people who are going to produce the best writers, the best scientists, or whatever, then first of all, you create a situation of greater incompetence, and a situation of creating competence is going to mean a society that's more likely to become religious, more likely to become conservative, more likely to split up. Secondly, you create resentment among those that have been left out, and you therefore help to create sort of a parallel society. But thirdly, you're right, it does act as a pressure on the whites, which they have to be particularly brilliant to get through in much the same way, but if you go back to our 100 years, if you weren't up a class to get into university, you had to be particularly brilliant. The only way you could rid is to go to university, you weren't up a class, you could get a scholarship, you couldn't afford to pay the fees. So only the particularly brilliant people that were not up a class would get into university. Now, it's the same thing, only the particularly brilliant people that are not ethnic minorities or whatever women will get into positions of influence. Do societies where whites are a minority select for particular traits or ethnogenesis? Well, if you look, the tendency, if you are a minority, is to consider yourself to kind of be under attack, and therefore to become particularly conservative and right-wing and religious. And so you can see this in American frontier times, that's exactly what the people like, that were under attack from the Native Americans or whatever, they were extremely religious, they were extremely conservative. Even the language, the kind of English that Americans speak is a kind of archaic form of English, a lot of words that we stop using in medieval England or whatever, or early modern England, but Americans are carrying on using them. So they tend to be more conservative, they tend to be more religious. Firstly, you could argue because if they're in a situation of war with the majority of people, then that will select for group selected traits. And what religiousness tends to do is take that, which is adaptive at the group level and make it into the will of God. And so people who are more religious will tend to be more group selected. And so it will tend to be the more religious people that will survive the battle of group selection. So the group becomes more more religious as a consequence of this. And religiousness is associated with genetic health, it'll be the genetically healthy group that will survive the battle of group selection. And it's because they've ethnocentrism and it will be the more ethnocentric group that survives the battle of group selection. So in all of these different ways, then a frontier society like that will tend to be quite conservative and quite religious. And you can see that if you compare the difference between Americans and English people also, it selects a certain kind of person will tend to emigrate anyway. That's intelligence, but also religiousness seems to be associated with immigration. And then also then they say if you look at white Zimbabweans, they eventually become a tiny little minority of extremely conservative, extremely right-wing, extremely religious. If you look at Afro-Khanas, it's a similar sort of thing. You touched on this, but what do you see as the most significant impacts of the trends where lower class and more are selected whites are mixing them more? Yeah, I think that this is to be predicted, as you say, in terms of if your viewers are familiar with this, fast and slow life history strategy. So we all sit on a spectrum for a fast life history strategy, which is an easy but unstable ecology, to a slow life history strategy where you reach the carrying capacity for the species, so you start competing with each other, and so therefore you can't just invest all your energy in sex and nothing in the children, because the children will just die. So you have to invest in the offspring, so you move energy away from sex and towards nurture, and then in order to nurture them, everything slows down, they have a long childhood in which they can be taught with precise ways of how to survive in that particular ecology. So if you're an R strategist, well, you live fast and die young, you could be wiped out at any minute, so you might as well just have sex with someone who's quite gently different from you, because they might have some unusual adaptation that would be helpful. Also, if you're an R strategist, it's a dangerous environment, you could be killed at any minute, so you might as well take risks, and you might as well, and you're not going to particularly bond with your children, so you won't care about your children being particularly genetically similar to you, because you're not going to invest much in them, so you might as well just go for somebody who's just healthy, no matter what race, i.e. somebody who is of a different race, and you're going to be attracted to outside of anyway, because you're going to be quite selfish. So we do know that it is the lower classes, as you say, the more R strategy-wise, that are more likely to engage in what used to be called miscegenation, i.e. in mixed-race relationships, and they tend to have lower IQ as well, and they tend to be less healthy genetically, and so those people will just become non-white. They will just simply be, a wokeness is promoting a situation where those people are told it is a good thing to do this, almost all commercials on TV involve mixed-race relationships and complete disproportion to how common they are, and this is wokeness that's promoting this, so it's telling white people who in the past would be socially unacceptable, perhaps, for example, in the 19th century, to engage in behavior like this. This is not just something that you can engage in, that you should, and so it will be case strategist that will be resistant to that, because if you're inclined to invest in your offspring and you're adapted to a very specific niche, because R strategies are generous, they're adapted to anything, but case strategist are a very specific niche, and you're investing in your offspring, and you will therefore be attracted to people that are genetically similar to you, because this will maximize the degree to which you are passing on your genes, which is important, because you're investing all these bio-angetic resources in a small number of children, so obviously, if you have a large number of children, you're going to pass on your genes by just having loads of kids, if you're going to have a small number of nerds, then you've got to maximize the degree to which they are your genes that are being passed on, and so you go for someone that is genetically very dissimilar to you, and also if you go for someone similar to you, then you're ensuring that the offspring are adapted to the specific diseases in that ecology, the genetic linkages that will allow you to fight off local diseases are not being broken up, and also you'll be more bonded to and closer to a nurture more children and more genetically similar to you, that's a natural process, so it will be those people that will stay within the European grouping, and it will be the R-shatter, just who will drop out of it. This is first a three-parter question from Trad Culture Preservation, who's been watching Dutton since 2019 and been sending superchats since 2020. He asked, "Why does every world religion in a most every world culture outside the West disagree with the Western ideology evolutionary psychology on human sexuality? If women really do have a much lower sexuality than men, how come very few cultures believe that they do? Why does the Simon's Balmeister narrative of sexual economics conflict so starkly with actual anthropological evidence?" I'm not aware that other cultures think that women don't have a sexuality, I don't understand that, I think they certainly do think that women have a sexuality, and that's why they practice patriarchy to varying degrees and they control their sexuality in all kinds of different ways. So I think that's, I don't accept the premise of the question, it seems to be that worldwide it is understood that females are of course highly sexual, and then if men, if the culture is asking men or if women are asking men to invest in them, to look to nurture them and their offspring, then the man's response is okay, he want me to nurture you and your wife, then I want to be able to control you so I can be sure that the offspring are mine, with the result that you get all kinds of patriarchal restrictions on female behavior everywhere. So all that has happened in the West is that the religion has collapsed and we have become much more are selected, and are selected type people have kind of taken over the culture with the result that we've gone backwards and we've become much less patriarchal, but if you go back to very primitive social organizations, I don't know, like the pygmy's or something like this, they're not very patriarchal at all, women wander around naked, marriages are dissolved as easily as they're formed, it's very much a free floor. So if you look at J.D. Youngman's book Sex and Culture, he notes this, as a culture develops more and becomes more complicated, it restricts sex more, which has two results. One is that you have a patriarchal society, you reduce into male conflict, you become therefore more internally cooperative, more ethnocentric, you're able to dominate other societies and win the battle of group selection. And the other result is that if you're sexually restricted, then you will tend to put the energy that you would put into sex, into other things, such as inventiveness, and this helps create a more complex society, and then eventually a society will become highly complex, but it will become decadent and it will start questioning the religion and then the religion upholds patriarchy, which upholds its own sexuality, and so therefore, ironically, in late stage of civilization, the civilization becomes, in that sense, much more similar to an earlier, more primitive civilization, just it kind of progresses. And as for Bama, I can't comment on that. There is a speculation about fertility trends where groups that undergo fertility pressures where their fertility crashes first actually have an advantage in the long term because they remove people who are genetically selected for lower fertility, so I've heard speculation that white fertility, especially in the United States, could actually be higher than for non-whites at some point, like say 100 years from now. Yes, that may be the case, that if you go through the change of industrialization at a very early stage as we did, then obviously your outlook will be different from going through it, and you change in terms of your fertility from having a large number of children, most of whom die, having a small number of children, most of whom survive, and if you go through that process at a different level of development, then it's going to have different consequences for you in the long term. You're quite right, the result of that movement is that you're selecting at your selecting for, to some extent, for natalism, you're selecting for the kind of people that want, if you bring about a situation where you can't have a child by accident, it's difficult to, then you're selecting for natalism, and you're doing that at a certain stage of health, at a certain stage of there being useful medicines, and that sort of thing. And so obviously, if you've got a population that is highly, that is not particularly natal, at a time when they have these medicines and so forth, that's going to have a different impact, if that population gets that point later, when there's much more in the way of medicine and so forth, then you're going to have a huge spike in that population, and similarly the other way round, you would have a huge drop in that population in a context of everybody being able to avoid pregnancy if they wanted to, if you can do so at a later stage, yeah, that makes sense. I think I can explain this by using the example Robert brought up before a bearing about how both Jews and Asians are in high positions of power, and it, as Dr. Dutton has said, well, that wouldn't make sense if it's a lower class, race mixing, when clearly, you know, Donald Trump has half Jewish children now, and there's many people in the Bay Area as well that have Asian children, so what would Dutton think about this kind of evolutionary strategy if it just means that it's the high strata are mixing, and not exactly the low strata, and if it was the low strata, it seems more like brown people or something, and what kind of ethnogenesis would happen from that through class interest? Yeah, in my book The Past is a Future Country, we talk about the fact that in multicultural society, when everything kind of collapses, and the likelihood is that white people, European people, will retreat from the surrounding third world chaos and create what we call Neo-Bizantiums in which civilization will kind of hold out, in much the same way that in South Africa, you have people retreating from the general chaos places like Orania, are kind of Byzantium as it were, in which civilization, African civilization is attempting to hold out. So you would suspect that there would be certain ethnic groups that would white a line, and certain ethnic groups that would not, and you would expect just the more intelligent members of every ethnic group, including blacks, to white a line, sort of Candice Owens types. So that's the first thing, it could be an overwhelmingly white society, one of these Neo-Bizantiums, but with some minorities within it. Secondly, I think it's true that the question is, with the process of miscegenation, is what is the level of difference? Now, the main direction of miscegenation among working class whites, white women, is with black people, and that is a big genetic difference, that's a substantial genetic difference. Whereas the main direction of miscegenation among the more educated people is with Asians, and in particular, North Asians. This makes sense for a number of reasons. First of all, the genetic distance between white people and Northeast Asians is not that substantial, it's not that big. And the genetic distance between them and Hispanics is even smaller because Hispanics are on average posture, essentially of Northeast Asians are Native Americans and white people. So the level of risk involved is lower, the level of genetic difference is lower. Obviously, the brain is 84% of the genome. So one thing that you're going to do is you're going to actually select for people who are intellectually similar to you, and that's clearly true that the intelligence difference between whites and Asians is much smaller than the intelligence difference between whites and blacks. And in addition, there's studies from Hawaii that have found that when you have mixed race relationships there, such as between whites and people of Japanese descent, then although they are obviously physically dissimilar, they kind of compensate for that by being in terms of intelligence and other heritable psychological traits, more similar, more similar than more similar than two white people that are a couple. So I think that this imagination that you're noticing is Congress with the life history strategy model. And we're having an ethnogenesis in America, really, and it's a consequence of the of Jewish people who marry out, and Jewish people are on average about half white anyway, and the other half is Middle Eastern, and that's the most closely related to whites. So they're basically kind of white people and white people with Northeast Asians, creating what they call "happas," which is a term from Hawaii. So yeah, I see that as consistent with the broader model. Does immigration help maintain liberalism, or do you see immigration just eventually devolving into a more kind of like post-liberal tribalism? Well, you'd have to talk about what's the level of immigration? If there's anything other than a very small level of immigration, then what this tends to do is it tends to, if you look at Robert Parton's research on this, he, Pluribus Unum, is it tends to reduce social trust, which would facilitate in favor of tribalism. It tends to reduce trust between the two ethnic groups and within the ethnic group, which would result in the splitting up of the ethnic group into different tribes, because the members of the native population fear correctly that the members of their own population will collaborate with the outsiders against them, which is exactly what you see. That's basically how the labor party or the democratic party or whatever work, isn't it? It's white people collaborating with foreigners to rule over other white people. So then you get a breakup of society into different warring, of white society into different warring microcosms, and this is exactly what you're seeing. So you're going to, therefore, go to a phase where liberalism might be promoted by this. As we have seen, people become less group-oriented, they become more individualistic, they become more left-wing, they promote liberalism, but eventually it gets to a point where these kinds of people, these left-wing people, these liberals, they don't breed, they create a culture which persuades you, which tells you, which rather than pushing you along the adaptive road map of life, as our culture did even a hundred years after the Industrial Revolution, it pushed you along a maladaptive road map of life. This creates a selection event, and this ultimately leads to conservatism. So it's not as simple as liberal or conservative. It's phases of liberalism, phases of conservative, based on what's going on in the genetics and in the culture. Are you familiar with that meme that's going around on Twitter/x that says, "The Wokermore Correct" in the mainstream? No. So basically, there's a meme that I've seen a lot that says, "The Wokermore Correct" in the mainstream, and basically, the point they're making is that wokeness are actually correct in differentiation and tribalism and talking about power dynamics, in a sense, like an earlier stage of the mainstream liberalism just says that everything is interchangeable, so that the point they're making is that wokeness, ironically, ends up leading to something more right-wing. Well, if that's the case, then I agree with them, because that's the whole point of my book, Woke Eugenics, is exactly this, that wokeness is a group-level adaptation which causes a society to become more conservative, more religious, more right-wing, and more genetically healthy, by ensuring that the people that are less genetically healthy either become part of a different race, in the case of the low IQ, or in the case of the high IQ, just don't breed at all. So in leaving only a people that are genetically healthy, that are right-wing, that are conservative, but are ethnocentric, so in that sense, you've got to ask yourself, do the woke people know this? Are all woke people actually crypto-conservatives? Are they crypto-nationalists? Do they know what they're doing? Is that why they get so angry when people who question them, i.e. those are the anti-woke? Is that why they get so upset, because actually they're nationalists, but they can't admit it? And what they're doing is ultimately going to bring about a group of white people that are highly intelligent and highly nationalistic. Could transhumanism end up making a lot of these trends are relevant, and do you have a chapter on AI? Yeah, AI bore its tears. I do have a detailed chapter on AI, and it seems to me that it could, it could slow, if you bring in AI, it could potentially slow down the collapse of civilization. It could keep civilization on life support, so that when it really does collapse, due to some massive meteor, meteor strike, or whatever, everybody will be so genetically sick that just everybody will die, and it will be like that EM Forster short story, the machine dies, where they all just live underground, and they rely on the machine, or the machine stops, sorry, where they all live underground, and they rely on this machine, and the one day the machine stops, and what happens then. So that's one possibility. I think what's more likely is that people who are conservative, and right-wing, and religious, will not be sucked into the fertility-destroying dimensions of AI. You can imagine, you know that filled vanilla sky with top cream, where you can imagine a situation where everybody is just, if you don't believe that life has eternal meaning, well, why not just spend your life living in an illusion, where you're plugged into a vanilla sky machine, and you're having sex with political crews, whether you feel like it or whatever. So why not just do that? And you can see that stupid people will be sucked into that, and you can see that your decadent people will be sucked into that. And so the people that won't be sucked into that, and will therefore have genuine children, real children live a real life, are likely to be conservative types and religious types. And this may be promoted more by advances in embryo technology and embryo selection and whatever. So you could get highly intelligent, highly conservative people that select for those qualities and all this sort of thing. So I think this process, if anything, could be work hastened by AI, because it will act, AI will itself be a selection event, which will suck in the maladaptive. I think with transhumanism, we also have to consider the ideal of designer babies. In other words, mixed with liberal capitalism, the ideal is that maybe if a black person has a child, what if he wants his black child to have lighter skin, or to have features from an anime character? These are all something you have to consider where transhumanism in a science fiction scenario will make people follow supply and demand cycles of a popular market rather than genetics. How then would this hypothetical designer baby problem would affect cultures and subcultures in the future when people are trying to figure out if there's loyalty or not to their brand, if white people then look like anime characters or something? I think you'd have to be fairly genetically sick to want something like that. And so you would be passing on traits that would probably mean that eventually you'd come up with a child or a grandchild that wouldn't want to have children. And also we have to remember that there is this dysphoria where by people decreasingly want children. We are evolved to an environment where we are surrounded by death and if you prime people with death, they want more children, they want more children, and they want to name children after themselves to achieve a kind of symbolic immortality. If you prime people with material in the opposite happens, they don't want children, they see children as more expensive, and they don't want to have any. So the more you create an environment that is an evolutionary mismatch for us, we're going to have people that are not wanting children. And I find it hard to believe that the kind of people that are into things like anime and other such perverted stuff really want to have children. Ed, is there anything else about your book, Wokee Genix that you'd like to add that we didn't touch upon? Well, I mean, one thing that it goes into in a lot of detail is what Wokeless is doing on the environmental level. You have this bio-linenism, obviously, which creates conditions of profound unfairness, but you also have a narco tyranny. And a narco tyranny is this idea that the state basically just stops looking after the basic things the state is supposed to do and it allows for complete anarchy, but it ruthlessly persecutes our ideology, it ruthlessly persecutes any deviation from the way you're supposed to think. It ruthlessly persecutes what it sees as heresy. So you get a situation where in England, a chap called Sam Nelia was sent to two years, prison for two years recently, for reducing stickers, saying that multiculturalism was a bad thing. But then you get a situation where an 18-year-old immigrant from the third world is giving community service for having sex with underage girls. And this is a narco tyranny, and what this only helps to do is create a sense among white people that they are persecuted, that their people in charge hate them, that they are despised, and this makes them more conservative and more right-wing. So it's the Wokeless, and I can't stress this enough, if it didn't exist, nationalists would have to invent it. Wokeness is bringing about, will bring, and is bringing about, a remnant European people who are the opposite of what woke people proclaim to desire, i.e. people that are right-wing, conservative, religious, and pronatal. Now that will bring about, eventually, a society, and they'll be good and bad things about it. They were good things about the 1950s, they were bad things about the 1950s. A woman gets, the secretary gets pregnant by her lawyer, Boston, has to get up the child for adoption. An illegitimate child is shunned from being served in a shop, because the shopkeeper is concerned that he will somehow be infected with the stain of illegitimacy if he serves this illegitimate child. There was very bad things about it, but also it was a more united society, and in general, people were happier. And so that's what it's going to bring about. And now one thing that is interesting, I look at it in the book, is I think that you don't have Wokeness in somewhere like Japan. And I suspect that's because the gene pool is so small, that the random mutations, or the random mixing that would be necessary to produce a person that was like that. And it's also so low in psychopathic traits and whatever, just don't manifest. And so they'll just probably die out. But white people are like, the European people are likely to be saved, and it is Wokeness that is saving them. So, you know, next time you see some blue-haired woman with tattoos and cuts on her on her left arm, then you should, you know, you should thank her, really, if you're a nationalist, if you're a person who's conservative. The trends in the book take into account that in the short-term Wokeness will continue and accelerate, but I've actually noticed a bit of a trend where a fact, at least a fraction of America's elite are actually pivoting back to the center. Are you noticing that? Exactly. It takes into account the fact that it gets worse and worse and worse, but eventually it's going to start to get better. One example of that is, I think there's two examples I can think of. One example is a lot of billionaires are becoming friendlier towards Trump and actually supporting Trump where they were colder towards Trump several years ago. And the other example is after the terror attack in Israel, and you saw this like far left anti-Israel activism, a lot of establishment figures who were pro-Israel, but previously friendlier toward Wokeness are colder towards Trump. So those are a couple of trends I've noticed, I've noticed the rise of this new kind of wokeness being replaced by more return to establishmentarianism. Yes, I agree with you. I was going to give those two examples as well. What you would expect to find in the progression of this kind of system would be certain key turning points. And I think one of them was Israel because it highlighted what is wokeness. It's that you are basically high mutational load, your high mental illness, your highly neurotic, you're a nasty selfish person. And so you can't attempt to gain power via a fair fight. And so you do so in the same way that women do, you virtue signal that you're not really a kind person. We have detailed studies on this, your low in agreeableness, your high in narcissism, which is associated with low agreeableness and highly eroticism, your high in Machiavellianism, you're highly mentally unstable. And so the way that you attain power is via virtue signaling, but also because you're full of all these negative feelings, and you feel, even though it's not necessarily true, you feel paranoid, you feel that you're put upon, you feel that you're lowly, you feel that you're crap. You hate anything which your anti structure, your anti hierarchy, you hate anything you're aggressive towards anything that is structured and ordered, because you see that as you resent that you see that as power that you should have. So if it's symbolic of power, then you desire to tear it down. And Israel is symbolic of power, and so therefore you hate it, and you're prepared to do anything, but the ends justify the means when you're that rapidly neurotic and full of negative feelings. And this was really symbolised in their reaction to what happened in Israel, they were prepared to promote a murdering terrorist group. And that's sort of a lot of quite mainstream people, I was at a conference with some very eminent people in London around about in October, that you've found about that time, and people that on TV all kinds of people and they said good God did this really sort of shook them. The trans movement has shaken a lot of people as well to realise just how nasty left wing people are. That's another one, and I think you're right about Trump, but that was so egregious for him to almost get shot, and for some people like Jack Black or whatever to show just how nasty they are, to take pleasure in that. And so I think this is such a good thing for Trump, but I think it is beginning to turn. And not their other factors as well, like the sector of the war with Russia means that you have to you have to tone tone down the runaway individualism, the fact that white people are not joining the army to fight means you've gone too far. The fact that every day people have had enough of all this trans stuff they've realized they've got they've they've they were all kinds of benefits to members of the elite or the aspirin to lead to woke virtue signal about black lives matter and all this kind of thing. But now now it's gone too far they've taken it too far, and you're seeing this fascinating movement back this is they're trying to move back. So for example that I saw election, a broadcast to the British election recently, and you know what, it was mainly white people in the commercial. Incredible. That would be unthinkable even half a year ago to not just have black people everywhere. Incredible, like things like a white couple. Imagine that on TV. Imagine that. Yeah, remarkable. And so, and so, and so you'll see you'll see you'll see they realizing those people people that are in power want to power and they want to stay in power. They were interested in wokeness and so forth in so much as it helped them to stay in power. Now there is a revolt against it and it's not helping them to stay in power, you will see them move against it, and you will maybe even see a tipping back. And that tipping back would be consistent with the fact that what is going on among generation z, which is that yes they are the most left with generation ever, but they're not as a look at in the book they're not as left wing as they should be people that are 40 are consistently. And in a measurable way, more right wing than people that are 20, because you are as you get older, you become more conscientious, you become less neurotic, you become more agreeable, and these things make you right wing. Now the, the, of course, the generations that are the most left with generation ever but they're not as left wing as they should be in comparison to people about my age, and they're split. The part of the reason for that is that they're much more polarized, and by gender especially by gender yeah the men are very increasing because men and men are less socially conformist and women. So therefore the consequences that the women are very very left wing and the men are much much less so, but also there's just a general divide whereby some of them were whereby really if you're the rebel the kind of person that rebels and that kind of person. At my age, you're at the far end of a Christian society and you rebel by being an atheist and all that how cool, you know, like Daria. But now it's it's completely changed you rebel by being right wing and conservative and religious you're rebelling against liberalism. So for all these reasons it's a highly split generation, I think that elite people are real and this just trump thing may well have a real fundamental change that you've had two things Israel and this show just what you know that these these people really are nasty, horrible mutants that bring into their orbit people that are a bit mutated that basically nasty people. And this becomes clear and thus you have a sort of a shift away from it which would be consistent with what would be predicted by a genetic shift anyway so that's the point. Ed is you want to plug your book and we'll find it by my new book by Edward Dutton and J Ray Rayner Hills woke eugenics how social justice is a master social Darwinism that you can buy from the publisher which is Imperium or you can buy it from Amazon. And if you're not familiar with me that's the jolly heretic you can find me on YouTube jolly heretic please go over there and subscribe and jolly heretic.com is my sub stack where I put out videos which are too spicy for YouTube and I also put out interviews with various interesting people and if you like what I do you can support me there for us as the cost of a pint of beer a month. But yeah I hope the book is of interest and also you can find my website Edward Dutton.com whether this is my book and dark or something like that. But yeah I think I think the I think the work work is a group level adaptation was going to bring us back to being healthy once again. Ed Dutton great show thank you so much for being on pleasure bye bye and also thanks Francis thank you guys. Thank you for tuning in. You can follow Robert Stark on his sub stack at robertstark.subsack or on his website at starktruthradio.com. See you next time. [Music] (upbeat music)