Only Elon Musk Believes in Evolution

 Everyone says evolution is real, but no one acts as if it were.

If intelligence is a positive product of evolution, then smarter people would reproduce more. But they don't. Someone who was a) smart, b) REALLY believed in evolution and c) believed themselves to be genetically better than average would d) want to reproduce. Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" revolves around this idea. The entire premise of evolution is that genes well-adapted to an environment proliferate. But, across the globe, TFR is dropping. It drops fastest in areas with high IQ. Public, vociferous proponents of evolution don't have children themselves. So, proponents of evolution are either a) stupid, b) secretly believe themselves to be dysgenic or c) secretly don't actually believe in evolution. Most people who claim to believe in evolution really don't. That's the charitable explanation. The uncharitable explanation is that people without children are stupid, and we're watching the world descend into a maelstrom of stupidity as TFR drops. That is, in the movie Idiocracy, the stupidest people were the "smart" couple that never had kids. Now, there is a third explanation. The underlying assumption to the previous analysis is, of course, that our thoughts are of any importance. But, if our ability to think does not matter at all (from an evolutionary standpoint), then the lack of reproduction is not based on anyone's beliefs. In fact, what any person believes/thinks is simply a distraction from what is really important to reproduction and evolution. If this is true, then IQ is not currently a positive contribution to gene survival.

Every Ancient Abrahamic Theology Wrong on Economics

If you would like to see an interesting thumbnail about economic policies over the centuries, this link provides an interesting chart and an even more interesting discussion in the comments.

The comments point out that this chart does NOT include information on "Jewish loans." The reason is obvious. As anyone with even a passing interest in medieval history knows, Christians could not loan to each other at interest, so when they needed a loan, they had to go to a non-Christian group to get the necessary cash. Jews were willing to do that work, so, in most cases, they became the bankers. There is, of course, the exception of the Christian Lombards. While Christian doctrine banned usury and restricted lending, Lombard bankers, often operating as merchant bankers, managed to operate by structuring loans as "conditional sales" or by charging fees on pawnbroked goods. When Jews were not available, the Lombards often stepped in to fill the gap. But, in any case, the Lombards and their customers had to find ways around Christian theological principles.

This was necessary because Christian theological principles concerning economic policy was, and still is, purest crap. And, to be fair, so is Jewish economic policy. After all, according to Jewish law (halakha), it is forbidden for a Jew to charge interest (ribit) on a loan to another Jew. And, to be fair, Muslims are prohibited from charging interest to ANYONE. The only reason correct economics could evolve in Europe was because both Jews and Christians "cheated" their own theologies by "mis-treating" people who were not part of their own faith system.

Notice, the pagans did not have this problem, because the pagans were theologically correct about economics. Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittites, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks and even pagan Rome, were all fine with the charging of interest. Interest was legal and common from as early as ~3000–2000 BC. The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC) regulated maximum rates (e.g., ~20–33% for grain or silver loans). Temples acted as lenders, charging interest. Indeed, the loans were worded so the divinity himself was actually the one governing the loan, and repayment was being made directly to the god.

But the God of Abraham did not allow this. Christians could not loan to Christians, Jews could not loan to Jews, Muslims could not loan to anyone. From the Jewish perspective, acting as bankers allowed them to slip a fast one past the goyim. From the Christian perspective, the Christians were being cheated, but it was often the only way to survive economically. Both sides only felt this whole arrangement was "cheating" because absolutely EVERY Abrahamic theology was purest crap, completely out of contact with reality, when it comes to economics.

The Christian religious system doesn't allow for proper interest rate or a decent market economy. That is why it had to "cheat" by taking recourse in an entirely different religious group to obtain the economically necessary pieces. Once you realize this, you realize that Christian, Jewish (and the derivative Muslim) economic policies are all completely wrong about a basic fact of human social existence. Every single Abrahamic system is simply and absolutely wrong. Their attempts to "cheat" their way around obviously wrong economic principles is the central cause for a significant part of the hatred each group carries towards the others today. It could be argued that the God of Abraham Himself engendered the foundation of hatred by refusing that which the pagan gods recognized as necessary. 

Christianity won over medieval society only because it had a better grasp of human nature and physical reality than either Judaism or Islam. It took Christian realism about the laws of the physical world to create the scientific revolution. Most of the earliest ground-breaking "scientists" (aka natural philosophers) were priests and bishops. This, in turn, was made possible only through the Christian embrace of pagan Greek principles of logic. While both Judaism and Islam rejected Aristotle, Christians embraced and used his principles. Aristotle's "On Logic" was the only Greek text that was never lost to the West. Pagan logic applied to Christian precepts and pagan banking principles applied to the Christian economy built Christian Europe.

At this point, however, Christianity is losing out to Islam. Why? Well, it is noteworthy that all three groups used to keep women out of power. Today, only Islam really retains that ancient teaching. In Western countries, studies indicate women make up the majority of converts to Islam, with some reports suggesting they constitute 60% to 75% of new converts in the UK. Similar trends appear in Australia (women roughly double the rate of men), France, and other European countries, with female converts often outnumbering males by 2:1 to 4:1 in anecdotal and survey data. Since women have the babies, when a woman converts, all of her progeny have also converted.

TLDR: All Abrahamic religions are crappy when it comes to economics. Women seem to prefer subjugation and harem life, and they want that for their children.

The Silence of the Dog in the Night

For those still defending Erika Kirk.

Name one video, blog, or podcast she has done in which she has directly championed any of the points her late husband promoted, such as:

1) insisting the US should not get involved in war with Iran

2) calling out Jewish donors who are trying to control the right-wing blogosphere

3) questioning the official Israeli narrative about what happened on October 7.

4) Promoting Charlie's economic policies

5) Repeating Charlie's stance on election integrity and voter fraud

Then explain why a woman would take her assassinated husband's position, knowing she could also be assassinated and thereby leave her children fully orphans.

Provide links to commentary from Charlie that indicates he would support a mother increasing the likelihood his children would be orphans.

Explain where the Bible promotes a woman who chooses to be assassinated over choosing to be mother to her already born children. 

Erika has vowed to make TPUSA “10 times better." Comment on what she is implicitly saying about the way Charlie ran TPUSA.

Erika has said she has to work to support her kids, even though it is documented fact that Charlie left her at least $10 million in cash and estates. Comment on what she is implicitly saying about Charlie's financial competence when she publicly says she has to work.

Telling a New Story

First Things has published yet another article lamenting the refusal of universal truth, and the retreat into "private" or "personal truth" as a way for people to explain the universe. They correctly note that this is untenable, but they don't seem to understand what's going on.

The primary issue is not the retreat into "personal truth."
The primary issue: men are built to listen to and reflect stories.

The overarching text which formed the civilizations of Greece and Rome was the Illiad/Odyssey. Everyone knew it, everyone quoted it, that text was the story pagan life built itself around.

Western Civilization was the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible had a relatively coherent story line with beginning, middle and end. 

Society is now re-orienting itself according to a much larger text that does not yet have a beginning, middle and end: the Internet.  The Internet is a cacophony of disparate, often conflicting stories. To retain a coherent story, every person has to retreat into his own self-constructed shell, because the Internet has not yet coalesced into one story-like, universal narrative. Worldviews are in a significant state of flux. No one can abide this, but no one has been able to fix it.

Until the Internet finishes this process and again presents a consistent story, the "private truth" approach is the only way for people to maintain the necessary story-like coherence our worldviews require. It is very likely that AI chatbots are, intentionally or not, being constructed so as to provide that coherent story-like worldview. We pursue these synthesizers of enormous information because we desperately need a story-teller. No AI currently has dominance. Whichever AI wins and gains dominance will be the story-teller going forward.

Jews do dominate a fair number of these AI endeavors, but the leaders in the field are primarily secular and they are not clearly winning. ChatGPT and Sam Altman may have been first movers, but it is increasingly unlikely that they win this race. Christians are not participating in the AI race, so their worldview will almost certainly not be  the dominant story-telling paradigm. Same for Muslims,  Haredi, Hindus, and most other religious viewpoints. 

We don't know what the new story will be, or what values it will espouse. The transition from the Iliad and Odyssey moved the value system from one based on personal honor and personal courage in the face of overwhelming odds to a society based around personal self-sacrifice, rationality and love (service to others) as organizing principles. The Internet will eventually tell a story that is unlikely to be based on either of these value sets. 

Elon Musk has famously stated his attempt to colonize Mars is not strictly about making mankind a multi-planetary species. It is also primarily his belief that mankind needs a dream to pursue. Musk is absolutely correct. His Mars colonization plan is almost certainly a necessary component of the emerging story mankind will use to organize itself, but is almost certainly not sufficient.

Godel obliterated the way Western society looked at itself. Western society was built around the ideas of Christianity, which included and emphasized that God was pure rationality, and therefore the embodiment of all truth.

While Godel was a theist, a man who even produced a proof demonstrating that Anselm's proof for the existence of God was valid, the Incompleteness Theorems shattered one of the foundational concepts of Western civilization - the idea that Pure Rationality (i.e., the Christian God) could embody the fullness of truth. World civilization has never really recovered from that shock.

Men need a story that forces them to reach beyond what they think they can achieve on their own. This is what drove the popularity of Christianity, it was what drove the Avengers' movies and every adventure movie ever made. As Musk correctly intuits, Mars is a good start, and grounding in reality is foundational, but we need an organizing story in which to place both of these goals. That is what every society on earth is currently trying to create.

No Vow, No Vocation

If the life you are living did not involve a vow of some kind, then it is not a vocation. The Magisterial documents do not consider single life a vocation because single life does not involve a vow.

Marriage, religious, consecrated virgin, sister, nun, monk, brother, even ordained, all involve a vow of some kind. Without a vow before God, there is no "state in life" or vocation. 

At least, that's what the Church teaches. This is stated explicitly in Vatican II's document on the laity.

56. The Church's rich variety is manifested still further from within each state of life. Thus within the lay state diverse "vocations" are given, that is, there are different paths in the spiritual life and the apostolate which are taken by individual members of the lay faithful. In the field of a "commonly shared" lay vocation "special" lay vocations flourish. In this area we can also recall the spiritual experience of the flourishing of diverse forms of secular institutes that have developed recently in the Church. These offer the lay faithful, and even priests, the possibility of professing the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience through vows or promises, while fully maintaining one's lay or clerical state[204]. In this regard the Synod Fathers have commented, "The Holy Spirit stirs up other forms of self-giving to which people who remain fully in the lay state devote themselves"[205]....

...Along the same line the Second Vatican Council states: "This lay spirituality should take its particular character from the circumstances of one's state in life (married and family life, celibacy, widowhood), from one's state of health and from one's professional and social activity. All should not cease to develop earnestly the qualities and talents bestowed on them in accord with these conditions of life and should make use of the gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit"[208].   Christifideles Laici #56

Notice, the document refers to "state in life" by then listing the states. Each state is attained by making a vow. Single life is not listed as a "state in life". Being single may be a circumstance or a condition of life, but it is not a "state in life" nor is it a "vocation."

Vocare is a Latin verb meaning "to call," "to name," or "to summon". It is derived from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root, meaning "to speak,"

When we live out a vow, we call out God's name in our lives. The vow speaks our desire to be bound to God's plan for our lives. If we have not spoken the vow, we have not called out to God, we have not explicitly given God a voice in how we will live our lives. 

Because single life does not involve an explicit vow, it is no more a vocation than having A+ blood is a vocation. It may be something we live with,  it may be part of who we are, but neither of those lived situations doesn't make for a vocation within the Catholic meaning of the word. 

Money as a Story

 I don't know if this story about the Rothschilds is true. It is probably closer to a Kipling-esque "Just So" story (illustrations included). While it may or may not be historically accurate, the idea behind it seems highly credible. 

1. Every dinner ended the same way. One of the Rothschild elders would suddenly ask a child: from and where today’s money in this room came. The child had to trace it — a loan in Vienna, a railway bond in France, gold shipments moving through London. Guests thought it was awkward interrogation. The family called it financial memory training.

2. If the answer was vague, the response was blunt. One banker reportedly told his son: “Money you can’t explain is money you will lose.” The exercise forced children to understand the origin of every asset - which deal created it, which risk protected it, which partner could destroy it.

3. Another rule made guests uncomfortable: children were allowed to interrupt adults with financial questions. If someone mentioned a company or investment, the child could ask: “How does it produce cash?” or “Who actually pays for it?” No one at the table was allowed to dismiss the question.

4. By their teens, heirs could mentally map entire deal structures. A family letter from the 19th century described it simply: “Teach them to see money as a story, not a number.” When markets crashed, they didn’t panic - they knew the machinery behind the wealth. 

5. One descendant summarized the ritual years later: “Most families teach children how to spend money politely. We were taught to interrogate it.”

That habit - asking where every dollar came from and where it flows next - quietly turned dinners into financial training sessions that compounded for generations.

Billionaires and Poverty Destruction

Any culture which has millionaires or billionaires has strongly enforced laws on private property and the right to capital accumulation. Any culture which encourages capital accumulation has low poverty rates. 

This is not a coincidence.

People are not created equal in ability. In any given skill area, some people are more skilled than others.  Cultures that encourage everyone to accumulate wealth will therefore always see wealth inequality due to the skill inequality between citizens. If the rules are the same for everyone, some people will do magnificently better than others. Thus, we see Olympic athlets, master violinists, amazing actors, and millionaires and billionaires. 

No one talks about a "talent inequalities" that must be "remedied" by infusing less capable artists with more artistic ability. Yet people talk about "income inequalities" as if the ability to accumulate and maintain massive income and wealth (two separate things, btw) was not a talent. 

The point here is simple: if your culture has millionaires and billionaires, it has very low or non-existent poverty. A country whose laws allow everyone to accumulate wealth will naturally produce people whose skill level allows them to do this to a superlative degree, but will also allow everyone in the culture to do it to at least some degree. Everyone who wants to get out of poverty can.

If your culture has no millionaires or billionaires, then your cultural rules guarantee poverty. No one, not even the most highly skilled persons, can get out of poverty because the rules won't allow it.

The answer is not to pour money into such a situation. By definition, the cultural rules will make sure virtually no one can maintain or use the wealth that enters. The answer is to change the cultural rule set. You will know you have changed the rules towards poverty obliteration when you start seeing a dramatic difference in wealth accumulation between large segments of the population.

This isn't "trickle-down economics", the idea that the wealth of the rich will somehow "leak" down to those who are poor. It is, instead, just the recognition that different skill levels will result in different outcomes. The outcomes don't matter - the rules and skill levels of the players determine the outcomes.

If you want to eliminate poverty, you have to allow people to use their talents to better themselves. Everyone who can do so, will do so. 

What of those who cannot? In a Christian society, the wealthy will care for them as part of their Christian identity. This is true, to a lesser extent, in Judeo-Muslim societies as well. Karmic societies, such as cultures based on Hinduism or Buddhism, won't take care of their poor, because they see the poor as people who are destined to be poor, they must be poor to "burn off" their bad karma.