The Genes of Reversal: The Anglobitch & Our Declining Anglosphere

A British economist has developed an interesting theory about how industrial society developed: genes for thrift and industry proliferated in 18th Century England because the elite had most surviving children. I will present his argument, before discussing its manifold ramifications for the contemporary Anglosphere:

A British economist is causing controversy with his new interpretation of what triggered the Industrial Revolution, writes Roger Highfield.

The Industrial Revolution saw the rise of steam power and mass production, with cotton mills, potteries, foundries and steel works sprouting up all over England's green and pleasant land.

The seismic effects spread from Britain at the end of the 18th century and rippled across the world. It marked a major turning point in history that was as significant as the invention of farming in around 6000 BC.

This period is seen by historians as the point at which modern society was born.
From the bucolic stories of rural villages told by Jane Austen in the 1810s to Charles Dickens's depiction of urban poverty in Victorian Britain, classic literature gives a vivid picture of the revolution's impact.

But scholars still argue about when the revolution really started, when its impact was first felt and whether it was too gradual to count as a sudden overthrowing of all that had been before.

The most elusive element of all, though, is what triggered it in the first place. Now, that last part of the puzzle may have been solved by a British economist. Next week he will tell the World Bank that it was a change in the cultural - perhaps even genetic - make-up of society that paved the way for the machine age. In A Farewell to Alms, published this month, Glaswegian Professor Gregory Clark of the University of California, Davis, argues that the revolution was not industrial at all.

Its roots did not lie in the technologies of Arkwright and Watt but in profound changes that had taken place in society over hundreds of years.

The problem facing all early societies lay in what Clark calls the "Malthusian trap", in honour of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who showed that living standards in pre-industrial societies would always be driven back down to a subsistence minimum by population growth, as long as technological advance was slow.

In pre-industrial societies women typically had five children. If living standards were good, most of those children survived to adulthood and rapid population growth followed. But with limited resources, only two of those five children survived to adulthood and the population remained stable.

Prof Clark explains that advances in the pre-industrial world, such as innovations in agriculture that boosted crop yields, did allow for a larger population to be supported (world population grew from perhaps 100,000 in 100,000 BC to 770 million by 1800) but as long as society was in the Malthusian trap, these innovations could not allow living standards to rise in the long term.

The average person in 1800 was no better off in material terms than in 100,000 BC.
In all pre-industrial societies in the Malthusian trap, some types of people were more successful at survival and passing on their genes, as Charles Darwin argued.
In the case of hunter-gatherer and "shifting cultivation" societies such as the Yanomamo of the Amazon basin, alpha males who killed the highest number people tended to sire the most children.

But in settled agrarian societies, with law and order, reproductive success shifted from the violent to the prosperous. We can see this in feudal England, where the successful reproduction of the richest, not strongest, dates back to the Middle Ages.

Records show, says Prof Clark, that "unusually in England, this selection for men was based on economic success from at least 1250, not success in violence". Later, around 1600, we can use an unusual source - the wills of 2,000 Englishmen, from squires to shepherds - to figure out even more exactly how reproductive and economic success were linked. These wills reveal how rich men were at death and also how many surviving children they had.

Prof Clark concluded that wealth, not social status or literacy, was the best predictor of the number of surviving children. Overall, the rich were leaving twice as many children as the poor. Survival of the fittest here meant survival of the richest.

He argued that this meant downward social mobility, as the poor failed to reproduce themselves and the rich produced surplus children who were then forced to take over the occupations of the poor. The more abundant children of the rich had to slide down the social hierarchy to find work, bringing with them bourgeois values. Consequently, today's population is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages.

The downwardly mobile had a radically different outlook from the poor, who were more attuned to the outlook of the early agriculturalists, whom Prof Clark regards not as noble savages but "impulsive, violent, innumerate, illiterate and lazy".

The spread of the progeny of the wealthy introduced characteristics such as hard work, patience and peacefulness. The rise in the preference for saving money over the instant consumption of it was mirrored by a steady decline in interest rates from 1200 to 1800.

We see in England, from at least the Middle Ages, that the people who succeeded in the economic system - who accumulated wealth, got skills, became literate - were increasing their representation in each generation. This was an ideal society to exploit the introduction of industrialisation. As well as passing on these cultural traits, Prof Clark thinks the genes linked with them began to spread, meaning that in biological terms, people were better mentally equipped to learn about and accept mechanisation.

This resulted in a more organised society and more efficient methods of production. So, in the centuries leading up to the Industrial Revolution, man was genetically adapting to the modern world.

This may seem a short time for DNA make-up to change, but, in support of his thesis, Clark points out that a Siberian effort to domesticate foxes paid off in just 30 generations. Honing traits such as patience can be remarkably rapid, he claims. "The triumph of capitalism in the modern world may thus lie as much in our genes as in ideology or rationality."

Why did the Industrial Revolution start in England and not in the much larger populations of China or Japan? Because their elite classes, the Samurai in Japan and the Qing dynasty in China, had surprisingly few children, Clark argues. Thus they would have failed to generate the downward social mobility that lit the touchpaper of the Industrial Revolution in Britain.

He adds that early English society was also surprisingly stable. "In most English villages, nothing happened from 1200 to 1800." This encouraged the survival of the richest, not the fiercest.

His conclusion is provocative because it revives the old notion that changes in people's behaviour drive events, rather than changes in institutions. Indeed, it may get Prof Clark into trouble, given the implication that other societies are less "evolved".

But he makes a sobering point. In one crucial sense we have changed little: despite material affluence, longer life spans and less inequality, we are no happier than our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Source: Daily Telegraph

In short, the genetic traits that created the industrialized Anglosphere were a fortuitous 'demographic accident'. However, since the Anglobitch was fully 'liberated' by Anglo White Knights and collectivists in the late Sixties, the Anglosphere has experienced the reemergence of the older, 'savage' genes eradicated by informal population eugenics in the late 18th Century. Of course, the UK is the leader of this particular trend, with its massive Welfare State and 'women on pedestals' agendas. This is most clearly expressed in the re-emergence of a vast, work-shy British underclass closely akin to Professor Clark's "impulsive, violent, innumerate, illiterate and lazy" pre-industrial peasants. In short, the specific brand of feminism that now rules the Anglosphere allows women to indulge their ingrained preference for shiftless, low IQ sociopaths and then leech off the taxpayer for the rest of their lives - producing a progeny of idle degenerates, into the bargain.

Clearly, advanced society is built on fragile genetic foundations: little wonder that the matriarchal holocaust unleashed by Anglo feminism is wreaking such havok across the Anglosphere.

Untimely Meditations

Greetings, friends. Here, I unburden myself of various thoughts that have been building up a head of steam in me, as it were, in a spirit of complete honesty.

Why Are Women not Attracted to Intelligence?
This is much discussed on a variety of mra blogs and other fora. Indeed, their attraction to moronic sociopaths is even more significant as it helped create the dangerous Anglo-American underclass. As a medical Doctor, I have come to believe the answer lies principally in genetics. The male contributes an X or a Y chromosome to his offspring, which determines its gender. The X makes a girl (XX) the Y makes a boy (XY). So far, so good. The problem with the Y is that it is a stunted, error-prone chromosome that is largely reconstituted by the X. This is why males tend to exhibit more extreme characteristics than females - this reconstitution process produces an individual with greater variance potential. This is also why males take after the mother more than the father, or why females take more after the father - his genetic contribution to a female child is more complete, being derived from his X chromosome. Though intelligence is of primary adaptive value to males, intelligence is unlikely to pass down the male line (in that the male's Y chromosome carries little genetic data to his male children, while his X carries far more to his daughters - where it is 'wasted' in the case of intelligence, and regresses in subsequent generations). This could explain why females eschew intelligence in men - while of value in his own life, it is of no value as a heritable trait.

Indeed, these claims might not go far enough. The British neuroscientist Susan Greenfield alludes to evidence that the central nervous system and neurological conditions like epilepsy descend almost perfectly through the female line. This is almost exactly what we would expect if the foregoing discussion were true. Indeed, Schopenhauer supports these claims with reference to German folk-knowledge in his famous essay On Women: that intellect descends almost totally through the female line.

And this explains why women show little interest in intelligent men. A man like Einstein would not pass his intellect on to his male children, where it would be of primary adaptive value. And apart from his intellect, he was in every other sense a Gamma Male - of no interest to women. In any case, if the central nervous system is only descended from the mother, the father's intellect is entirely irrelevant to his breeding fitness. And this, my friends, is why women prefer morons.

How the Internet is Changing Men's Lives
There is an academic at the University of Bristol in the UK who says some interesting things about male underachievement. Broadly, he says that young males seldom really talk to adult men in the way young females talk to adult women. Consequently, they tend to be more influenced by the media in their goals and aspirations - wanting to be rock stars and professional athletes rather than pursuing realistic, middle class career paths.

However, one is continually struck by the profound observations of young middle class males in online mra fora. Apart from a few manginas, they are infinitely more clued up about women that us oldies over 28 ever were. And this is because the Internet is allowing males of different generations to communicate properly for the first time in decades (if not centuries). The young male can, with a click of his mouse button, communicate with males across the Anglosphere of all ages and classes. He can hear from guys living in trailer parks in Montana or slums in Manchester or Melbourne who were divorced by some bitch and taken to the cleaners. In short, the wily old boars can show their young brothers the pitfalls of consorting with the Anglobitch.

There can be little doubt this is shaping the Pan-Anglosphere Marriage Strike. And long may it continue.

The British Political Crisis
Britain is falling apart. The MP's expenses scandal, the recession, the rise of the BNP and Prime Minister Brown's grotesque social incompetence have created a situation unknown in living memory. However things go, what we are witnessing is a 'crisis of hegemony' as described by the Italian political philosopher, Antonio Gramsci. What this means, in short, is that the ideological 'cement' that binds Britain together is starting to crumble. As Britain is the ideological nexus of the Anglosphere, this crisis will be reflected from Alelaide to Calcutta, from Quebec to Miami, in various ways. The old ideological sureties are falling away. My friends, this is the time to advance our cause as never before and programme the Anglobitch meme (and the mra meme in general) into the new hegemonic structure that will emerge from this time of chaos. It is truly an exciting time to be alive and at the height of our powers.

'A Generation': The Weasel Words of Anglo-American Feminists
I think it is the Chinese who say, 'defeat is an orphan, while victory has a thousand fathers'. And so it is with feminists: women's rather measly contributions to civilization are enormously inflated and always proclaimed as exclusively female achievements. However, they are very quick to mask exclusively male losses/experiences/sacrifices using a variety of weasel words. For example, consider how often Western liberals/feminists describe the First World War as a disaster that befell 'a generation'. In fact, the ten million dead, and the many millions more maimed, were almost exclusively men. So, it wasn't 'a generation' at all: it was men who experienced/suffered in World War One, exclusively. The same with D-Day: it wasn't 'a generation' who liberated Europe from tyranny, it was men. There probably wasn't a single woman on those beaches, in any capacity. Men, keep alert to the weasel words of Anglo-American feminists and their underhand attempts to distort history, reality and everything else.

Why is Jessica Valenti so Irritating?
The most important meditation of all, since I have the answer: it's her mouth. Wet, twisted and crooked like the cunt herself. She has a certain inbred quality like the perverted British record producer, Jonathan King (his mouth is rather twisted, too). In the Middle Ages, people quite rightly believed that physical blemishes were a mark of God's disfavour - physical expressions of metaphysical taints. In the case of Valenti, when we consider her venomous views, the spiritual root of her physical disorder is entirely obvious.

Why Don't Women Post Here?
Why don't women post on this Blog? If they have rational objections to these views, why don't they come and call us out? On Dick Masterson's site, Anglo-American females are the majority of posters, continually berating their critics for being 'fags', having small penises or not 'getting laid'. OK, if they are so smart and their arguments so strong, why don't they come to Anglobitch and 'clean our dials' for us? Because their non-existent arguments would get trashed, that's why... and they know it.