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.