The Racist Gene

A recent properly progressive headline from the great, red state of Missouri.

Damn white people and their... **shuffles deck** ... dating apps!

The definition of racism must be something like: holding people to different standards based on their race. That is not a noncontroversial definition. The dominant segment of the left believes that being racist consists of merely being white, or at least of being unapologetically white. By either approach - our boring logic-based formalization, or their hip race-based take on racism - this headline must be racist. By our standards, because it is condemning whites for a behavior universal to all races. Or by their standard, because the author is white. He knows it, but also knows he can still be accepted in the DC cocktail party scene if he self-flagellates juuust enough.

Mating within one's own race has been the norm, for all races, throughout all history, with the possible exception of Brazil. Even among whites of the west - the least racist society of all time - the great majority of offspring are single-race babies. This is so even considering that the cosmopolitan mainstream like to date across race lines so they can virtue signal on social media. Look, proof of how un-racist I am! (unlike those bigots...) Of course they're the same people who still call people like Gavin McGinnes a white supremacist, who has mixed-race children with his non-white wife. I'm told that the interracial dating fad is all the rage in England where, truly, if you aren't shacking up with POCs, you're definitely a racist. But, when it comes time to marry & mate, birds of a feather still flock together.

Why is it that humans innately prefer to date their own types? Because they're racist? That's really a nonsensical answer. Why do humans eat food? Because they're hungry? It's a tautology. Humans eat because they're hungry, and are hungry because they haven't eaten. Not too enlightening. But we know the answer. Humans eat because consuming energy and nutrition gives survival advantage over not eating.

Certainly, picky breeding gives a survival advantage. Not to the individual, but it's never about the individual. It's all about the genes. Dawkins makes the case very well in The Selfish Gene. Gene survival is what is selected for. They run the show. We're merely robot vehicles that the genes utilize for their own selfish ends. They're happy to use us organisms up and kill us off as necessary. Animals like salmon sacrifice themselves to make a spawning run. Most human parents are ready and willing to defend their children's lives with their own. Love is irrational, they say, but such self-sacrifice is perfectly logical from an evolutionary viewpoint. Kill a man and his genetic heritage still passes on through his offspring. But kill his children and he risks becoming a genetic dead end. This is even truer for women, who have limited years of fertility.

Picky breeding gives an advantage because, when we unzip our genes and zip half of them up with someone else's, we want to ensure that the other half is as fit as possible, to ensure our offspring survive and continue to propagate our genes down the line. Here is where people get hung up. They say that, because one race is not better than another - or, perhaps if they're being a bit more rational, because the variations between individuals are typically greater than those between the races - then it is completely illogical to engage in race-based mating strategies. The optimal strategy is to find the most fit partner possible to ensure maximum fitness of your progeny. QED, and those who disagree are not merely icky racists who are totally not invited to our cool parties, but they are actually doing themselves a great disservice by foolishly engaging in a suboptimal approach to the only game that ultimately matters. Funny, that, because the selfish gene should compel us to never interrupt our enemy when he is making a Darwinistic mistake.

That logic is not faulty for what it contains, but what it omits. As usual, they obsess over the part that syncs up with the liberal worldview, and ignore the existence of the rest. Yet, a paradox remains. If intraracial breeding gives no advantage, why is it the norm for all humans? Liberals can't acknowledge the explanatory reasoning, so this is where they just get superstitious. It's those damn white people with their Whiteness and their Crusades! Or whatever. You've heard it all. There can't be a Darwinistic reason for racial mating - the Narrative does not allow it - so the answer must be demons. Those demons happen to all be white as a matter of convenience.

Dawkins doesn't explicitly offer an answer on the dilemma, but it falls out easily from the reasoning of his great book. First, we should dispel a myth or two. One favorite meme of the left that you're likely to encounter on Facebook is that, because all humans share over 99% of the same DNA, we are all virtually the same. Why does it even matter who we mate with, if the overwhelming majority of their genes are the same anyway? Well, a chimpanzee has 99% of the same DNA. I don't see them marrying chimps. A sea sponge has about 70% of the same DNA. Even on their ever-exanding eye chart of sexual orientations I see no mention of sea-sponge lovers, although I do hesitate to give them any ideas.

We have to consider the genes which vary among humans and ignore the rest, because those are the ones that matter to us. Dawkins notes the genetic similarities of relatives. Your child has 50% of the same genes as you and, by reflexivity, so do your parents. Your siblings also have, on average, 50% as well, but with more variance. Identical twins are 100% related. In theory, it is possible that you and your sibling each got the opposite split of genes from each parent and end up "0%" related. That probably never happens to the full extreme, but still it is possible for siblings to be more or less related to each other than they are to their parents. With your grandparents you share 25% genetics, and the same with your first cousins. There is still a significant genetic link at that point, and grandparents tend to be involved in helping raise their children's children. After that, the bonds get loose. Great-grandparents and second cousins don't tend to play a key role.

The part that gets lost is that those percentages are theoretical minimums. Even if two siblings got opposite splits of their parents' DNA, they wouldn't be totally unrelated, because their parents aren't totally unrelated. That is, they share some of the same genes. In fact, the more related the parents are (in the sense of having common genes, not of being kissing cousins), the more related the kids will be to each other. The more related people are to each other, the more selective pressure they have for mutual survival. I want me to survive so that my genes survive. I want my children to survive so that my genes survive, and their children too. I want anyone with many of the same genes as me to survive. I want my offspring to have as many of my genes as possible. Well, I don't necessarily want that, like I want a Tesla Roadster, but my selfish genes are running the show, and trick me into doing their bidding.

A thought scenario. Two people, you must kill one and allow the other to survive. If one is your identical twin, and one your "anti-twin", who do you let live? If you have no moral qualms but to do the bidding of your selfish genes, then the choice is obvious that you let your twin live, which is as good as letting yourself live, in the gene wars. What if one is a random person of your race, and the other is a random person of another race? Even more, what if one is a deadbeat of your race, and the person of the other race highly fit? Well, you want people of your race to win because you share more genes with them. In fact, the latter case makes the case even stronger, because the last thing you want is a bunch of highly competitive "other" genes out on the field. As it turns out, the selfish gene is a bit racist too.

The optimal approach is to breed with the most genetically similar person to you without risking recessive genetic disorders. The recessive gene thing ends up being a big deal, because recessive genes common to a particular race will be eradicated by interracial breeding. For instance, redheads are genetically recessive. It's not racist to say that redheads shouldn't breed with dark-skinned people. In fact, to say that they should do so it tantamount to calling for genocide against redheads, and genocidal is the most racist that you can be. The left claims to be all for racial diversity. Can we say we've increased diversity if redheads go extinct? Of course not, but it's a moot point. When they say more racial diversity they always, and I mean always, just mean fewer whites.

Now if you refer back to that original headline, it's actually a twofer. It doesn't merely shame whitey, but hints at a solution. We finally have the technology! What to do about those pesky genes and their incessant machinations for optimal reproduction? It's 2018, and there's an app for that.

The study’s authors noted that OK Cupid itself experimented with pairing up users and saying they were “highly compatible” — even though they weren’t considered good matches — and found that the conversation between the two people often went well.

What do liberals do when their designs for the world contradict with reality (which is always)? They lie! It's bloody brilliant! Well, these are the same people who so zealously encourage confused children to engage in transgenderism, which greatly increases their risks of suicide and other maladies...why wouldn't they trick internet daters into potentially disastrous relationships? Isn't progress grand?

Are there any other noble attempts to fix the broken bigoted world? Of course...

Another potential solution could come from 9Monsters, a gay dating app from Japan, that allows people to describe themselves without explicitly revealing their race, according to the study’s authors. 

Admittedly, withholding truth is an improvement over outright lying to people.

Another gay dating app, called Hornet, prevents people from using their profile to mention race at all.

Well, when it comes to gay dating then none of this genetic talk really matters. What difference is there if a homosexual dates a white or an Asian or a sea sponge? There is no gradient of reproductive optimality for gay dating. They all score at zero. No right winger takes the time to lecture the gay community on the evils of interracial dating, but I do love the article's insinuation that we need to do something about all the racism on gay dating sites.

And a final solution might come in the form of “Kindr,” a campaign from Grindr that seeks to stamp out prejudice on its app by promoting inclusion. The study’s authors said positive writing about diversity may help promote more diverse couples on the apps.

The new guidelines from Kindr, for example, suggest that users describe “what you’re into, not what you aren’t” to avoid offending others.

“These guidelines exist to let you express yourself freely while also helping us maintain the safe, authentic, and accepting environment we strive to cultivate,” the guidelines read. “Any violation of these guidelines may result in the removal of prohibited content or a permanent ban from Grindr.”

Did he really just call it a "final solution"? Anyway, this is my biggest beef with the gays, is they're such wimps. On their own major dating site, they must focus on what they like over what they don't, at risk of being excommunicated. "Oh my gosh, he just said three things he didn't like but only two that he did. Get him, girls!" Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a funny cop drama, if it's still on, which features a stiff-necked hardass police captain who is gay married, who is often at the center of the core moral dilemma of the episode. It's amusing to have the "straight man" be gay. If gays were generally more like that, they'd get a better reception from the rest of us. There is a misconception from the liberals that we hate gays. Well, it's not really a misconception so much as an attack to position themselves as savior of any group they can convince are helpless and marginalized. They've rejected the Christian value of hating the sin but loving the sinner. Like them, we want what's best for society. We don't hate gays. They leave more chicks for us, am I right? Seriously though, the logical approach is not to interrupt your enemy when he's making a Darwinistic mistake. For instance, I think all Somali immigrants should be gay. (I'd love to hear liberals debate us on that one.)

A final word from our sponsor.

“Kindr is not going to solve racism by any means,” Zumwalt said, according to GQ. “These issues have been present in our community long before Grindr, but we hope to increase conversations around it and have a dialogue about what constitutes sexual racism.”

If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that we have to do something about all those racist bigots on Grindr. Thanks for reading. Please share this post on Facebook, if you're trying to get banned and haven't been able to do that yet.