Next, success in passing down genes doesn't always correlate to positive attributes. I shouldn't really need to explain that to Diss-Righters who are hyperventilating about being swamped by the Third World, but I will.
Sometimes the ability to put on weight and be a bloated lardass can be an incredibly successful adaptation to reality. It really depends on the food situation. Meanwhile, being a bright and intelligent person in certain societies has often been an absolute death sentence. Much of reality is complex and often counter-intuitive.
I would confidently predict that some of the most "maladaptive" types around today would, if not quite benefit from societal collapse, at least do less badly than expected, compared to what may presently seem to be more "adaptive" types.
In other words, Dutton's "genetically maladaptive" vs "non-genetically maladaptive" distinction is subjective, conditional, and transitory. Otherwise all the "freaks" he is pointing at would have been weeded out of the gene pool millennia ago. They haven't been. George Washington has, however.
Next, Dutton and Co. predict that wokeness fast-tracks civilizational collapse. This is just more stupidity. There is no evidence for this. Wokeness, such as it is, is merely a pejorative construct that maps onto something called "inclusion" in societies characterised by high immigration and an amoral Post-Christian approach to sexual morality. By the way, there is still sexual morality. Trust me!
Post-Christianity is inevitable in any society that isn't a straw-sucking peasant society of witch-burners.
As written here at Neokrat, wokeness is actually a sign of "social integration" rather than "social disintegration." It is a response to the downside of the economic virility of liberalism:
"Wokeism is not an attack on the family. It is instead a reaction to the decay of the family and an attempt to compensate for it.
The decay of the family can be expressed as falling marriage rates, increasing divorce rates, rising incelism, and plummeting fertility. All these factors are an expression of rising living standards and the economic security that all working class people have craved and striven towards since the Tolpuddle Martyrs got their come-uppance.
These factors create in formerly White, family-based societies the main client groups of wokeism, namely increasing numbers of non-Whites and the gender-confused. Gender-confused, in my view, not only includes LGBTQ+ people, but incels, single career women, and even the sexually promiscuous poor; although most of the spotlight seems to be on drag queens and transgenders, possibly because this is better trigger bait in our attention driven economy."
In short, wokeness is a stabilising force that aims to overcome polarisation, tribalism, civil war, and collapse that would undercut the efficiency of a modern Western (or Eastern) society.
Society may collapse for all sorts of potential reasons -- geopolitical (WWIII), environmental, a meteorite, falling birth rates, AI insanity, etc. -- but it won't collapse because we avoid insulting immigrant workers drafted in to wipe the arses of White boomers in care homes or allow men in dresses to visit libraries.
The next "big gun" in the Dutton armoury is that "wokeness is exacerbating the fertility disparity between liberals and conservatives."
These are not two different species of animal competing for the same ecological niche. "Liberals," I have found, are often related to "conservatives" and even "eugenic-obsessed fascists."
A "liberal" in many cases is just a rich kid who wants to spend the money his "conservative" parents have built up after decades of hard work and scrimping and saving, on drugs, whores, or possibly a sex-change operation. In other words, the apparently dysgenic effect of liberalism is just the general tendency of all humans to behave like lazy, entitled, self-obsessed shits once the pressures of poverty have been removed. Something to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs perhaps.
I predict that today's "conservatives," who are actually much, much more liberal than yesterday's conservatives, will simply breed tomorrow's "liberals," who might actually be less liberal than today's liberals.
Here we see the weakness of much dissident right thinking: it is tied to rigid and absolutist constructs, rather than realising the tentative, transitory, and mutable nature of many of these categories.
The same could be said about Dutton and Co's concept of "ethnocentric" and "religious" peoples who are supposedly inherently fitted to "survive the battle of group selection." Again we have these fake fixed constructs. There is no such thing as an inherently "ethnocentric" and "religious" people. These are conditional responses to situations.
150 years ago we were pretty much all "religious peoples." WTF happened?
Likewise ethnocentrism doesn't survive long if there are incentives for it to break down. In modern liberal, individualist societies there are plenty of incentives. 110 years ago, people from the supposedly "ethno-uncentred" West were quite willing to die for "King and Country" by throwing themselves into meat wave attacks against a slightly different version of European man. It doesn't get more "ethnocentric" than the Somme.
"We refuse to pickle our blasted cabbage!"
The final point of Dutton and Co, that I will address in this article is that "anti-White discrimination supposedly selects for "Whites who are exceptional," as well as "provoking a right-wing backlash."
This is clearly designed to make Dutton's audience feel good about themselves, while living with the failure that probably predisposed them towards his ideas in the first place. Essentially these "ideas," such as they are, have an emotional appeal, rather than an intellectual one.
Wokeness, as explained above, is a kind of "inclusion" and amelioration of social divisions. Depicting it as "anti-White discrimination" is rather hysterical.
But society is at least partially a zero-sum game. More money, jobs, and promotion for women, gays, and minorities means less for straight White men. When this process goes too far, it does indeed create an occasional backlash, but this just allows the system to be recalibrated and become more efficient. Thus it strengthens it.
There is certainly no effective counter-argument to inclusion going on here, except to moan that it occasionally goes too far. Alas, even the Dissident Right seems reluctant to argue that all the top jobs should go to straight White men. If they were, perhaps I would respect them a little bit more.
All in all, Dutton and Co's ideas smell mainly of "cope" for self-victimising losers who are too cowardly to push outright for the LARPy Nazi eugenics they crave, or engage in the hopeless heroism this would require. Instead they hope to have the last laugh, Alan Partridge style, by a backdoor victory that will never happen.
