Lion of the Blogosphere

Heinlein, rational thinking, and eugenics

A reader provided a link to another guy’s blog post about the novella Gulf. The other blogger is also an HBDer. In his blog post, he points out that Gulf is available online for free, and legally so.

Remember that one of the reasons I write about Heinlein is because of his huge but unappreciated contribution to conservative libertarianism. (Although Steve Sailer appreciates it.)

Let’s analyze some additional stuff from this novella. Here’s one key sentence from “Kettle Belly’s” speech to Gilead:

“Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.”

If I had read that when I was a teenager, that would have totally gone over my head. However, this is a topic I’ve blogged about relatively recently. At least this is something that I thought I blogged about relatively recently, but I can’t seem to find the blog post.

Intelligence is required for logical thinking, but most intelligent people don’t habitually use their intelligence to think logically, or rationally. Instead, they do stuff with their emotions, and then after the fact they use their intelligence to rationalize it.

“For explanations of a universe that confuses him he seizes onto numerology, astrology, hysterical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy.”

According to Heinlein, one way to rule out someone as a rational thinker is if they believe in a religion. All rational thinkers are atheists. But not all atheists are rational thinkers. In Heinlein’s day, it was probably the case that the vast majority of people who would admit to being atheists were rational thinkers, but today, with declining belief in Christianity and Judaism, we have many people who say they are atheists but actually substitute other stupid beliefs in lieu of the religion of their parents.

Kettle Belly believed, and probably Heinlein himself thought it was a good idea otherwise he wouldn’t have put it into Kettle Belly’s mouth, that (1) the world would be a better place if there were more rational thinkers, and (2) that rational thinking is a genetic trait; and (3) you could breed more rational humans by having the most rational breed with each other; and (4) this eugenic scheme is a good idea and would be beneficial for mankind (because of the first point).

Outside of, perhaps this blog, you never hear anyone say that the problem with the world is that there aren’t enough rational thinkers.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 12, 2017 at 7:14 pm

Posted in Biology, Books

66 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “Outside of, perhaps this blog, you never hear anyone say that the problem with the world is that there aren’t enough rational thinkers.’

    Libertarians have been saying that for a long time, or at least a key problem. Including Heinlein.


    July 12, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    • “Libertarians have been saying that for a long time”

      I never heard Ron Paul say that. Actually, if anything, Ron Paul is the opposite of a rational thinker.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 12, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    • All followers of Ayn Rand believe that a shortage of rational thinkers is one of the most pressing problems facing mankind.

      Lewis Medlock

      July 12, 2017 at 7:56 pm

  2. ‘According to Heinlein, one way to rule out someone as a rational thinker is if they believe in a religion. All rational thinkers are atheists.’
    Aristotle-Essentially the creator of logic as a method was not an atheist
    St.Thomas-Not atheist
    Miguel de Unamuno -Not atheist
    Descartes-Not Atheist
    The full list for rational theists is much longer but I wanted to emphasize philosophers.

    D. Gonzalez

    July 12, 2017 at 7:45 pm

    • Lion may be misrepresenting Heinlein’s point. Believing in a religion is not the same as being an atheist. Theism is merely the belief in the existence of a “god.” Religious thinking includes the belief in dogma, which may encompass an established hierarchy, societal norms, and in many cases, some form of personal subjugation.

      The distinction is important, and other than St. Thomas, it is not clear that the philosophers in your list were in fact religious.

      Being a Theist amounts to acknowledging the undecidability of metaphysics. That is, recognizing that there may or may not be a first principle for all things, but given that it is impossible to know either way, one can go happily about believing in some “god.”

      However, being religious may be a strong indicator of irrational thinking. For example, high religiousness is correlated with lower writing proficiency levels:


      July 12, 2017 at 10:57 pm

    • @ D Gonzalez

      None of those examples is compelling. Aristotle believed in what, Zeus? Or some abstract, Deistic “first cause” god? So hardly a god at all in either case.

      It’s known that Descartes struggled hard to believe, his whole life. He was non-believer going through the motions b/c of fear and social pressure that were more intense then.

      Miguel de who? I have no idea whether this guy was even rational.

      As for Aquinas, he seems crazy (became a monk). You know child-like practices were brutal back then. A lot of people must have come out the other end with a screw loose. Being smart doesn’t change that.

      All examples of great religious thinkers are similarly weak. You’ll probably say “no true Scotsman,” but whatever.


      July 12, 2017 at 11:56 pm

      • @Lowe (Pretentious german bullshit detected)

        ‘Aristotle believed in what, Zeus? Or some abstract, Deistic “first cause” god? So hardly a god at all in either case.’ Aristotle only came up with a little work called Methaphysica…which is why you use the word methaphysics, nothing big.

        ‘It’s known that Descartes struggled hard to believe, his whole life’ Great so you discount He wrote ‘Essai sur l’idée de Dieu et les preuves de son existence’ and Methaphysical meditations, under the nebulous ‘social pressure’

        ‘Miguel de who? I have no idea whether this guy was even rational.’ Doesn’t surprise me.

        ‘As for Aquinas, he seems crazy’ Great, just randomly label Tomas d’Aquino ‘crazy’. After all He only wrote the Summa Theologica, the most important philosophical work on ethics and theology since Aristotle.


        I was mostly responding to the ‘All rational thinkers are atheists’ part. Which is false.

        D. Gonzalez

        July 13, 2017 at 7:50 am

      • @ D Gonzalez

        Being smart and having great accomplishments doesn’t change the fact that each is a poor example of a religious person.

        Smart men have virtually always only barely believed, or mostly just gone through the motions, out of fear or desperation. Descartes is the perfect example of that.

        Citing a bunch of historical figures who all lacked modern science, and mostly lived in much more religious societies, is poor evidence of much other than their ignorance and dysfunction.


        July 13, 2017 at 11:48 am

  3. It is also worth saying that the ability for rational thought is either fully independent of IQ, or, at the very least, it requires a minimum IQ threshold beyond which there is no correlation between IQ and rational thought.


    July 12, 2017 at 7:47 pm

  4. OT, lion did you see this ramzpaul youtube video, it’s perfect! the africa problem is HUGE. and it’s 1000% about #HBD!


    July 12, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    • He looks like Fred Rogers. I was waiting for him to take off his jacket and put on a cardigan.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 12, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    • This guy is a joke, a very bad, and very racist joke.

      His video:
      -Bwaaaa, the bad African doctor, fake news!
      -I am super-racist, completely I misuse concepts from HDB to reduce the cognitive dissonance in my head stemming from being so racists without any actual excuse for it
      -“Bad Africans” (a figment of my imagination because I’ve never met any), will doom the world.

      Terrible post.

      I am disappointed to see that many of this blog’s readers have not been able to understand Lion’s views on HDB. I am sorry, but properly understood, HDB cannot justify your racism.


      July 12, 2017 at 11:14 pm

      • “I am disappointed to see that many of this blog’s readers have not been able to understand Lion’s views on HDB.”

        lion, maybe you can give us your definition of HBD?


        July 13, 2017 at 6:53 am

      • Calling someone racist is hate speech.


        July 13, 2017 at 7:36 am

      • Your critique of this video is to make reference to a quasi-knowledge pseudo-problem like racism?


        July 13, 2017 at 9:34 am

      • lion, what about this tweet, is it consistent with your view of HBD?


        July 13, 2017 at 6:14 pm

      • It’s unnecessarily mean-spirited, but different average behavior between different racial populations is HBD.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 13, 2017 at 6:22 pm

  5. “Good idea” (5) was the “better dead” list. Which he put in Kettle Belly’s mouth. Whether Heinlein truly thought (5) was a generally good idea or a more a “gravest extreme,” last ditch measure, is an open question.

    However, in “Gulf” he also depicts Gilead as able to rationally shut down his emotions when watching the girl tortured, or disabling or killing someone. The “supermen” in charge presumably agree on the list and cross them off. I doubt Heinlein thought this was practical but he seems to be saying that this sort of thing is a possible consequence of the really high-quality rational thinkers working together.

    Whether that’s a good or bad thing is basically an entirely different subject.


    July 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

  6. “Outside of, perhaps this blog, you never hear anyone say that the problem with the world is that there aren’t enough rational thinkers.”

    Huh? You must be aware of Less Wrong, Slate Star Codex, and the larger rationalist community. They try to spread their ideas far and wide and they seem to be making some good inroads with effective altruism.

    Horace Pinker

    July 12, 2017 at 8:13 pm

  7. …if they believe in a religion. All rational thinkers are atheists…


    “atheism” in the sense of being anti-religion or non-believer in any religion is not what “atheism” is used to mean. or at least not since it was used as a term of abuse for christians in the first 3 centuries ad.


    1. all religions are bullshit
    2. therefore there is no God.


    to get from 1 to 2 lion uses all of the illogical rules of inference and irrational presuppositions he rightly observes in other people.

    truly sad!

    Beverly Hills Ninja

    July 12, 2017 at 8:17 pm

    • Someone seems irrationally upset that Heinlein doesn’t think so highly of him.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 12, 2017 at 8:20 pm

      • atheism is just another religion. how dumb do you have to be not to see this?

        read Being and Time

        and GROK!

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 12, 2017 at 8:28 pm

      • GROK is probably the noise your brain makes, after you finish a near incomprehensible work of German philosophy.

        And for that low, low price you can learn to post like this guy.


        July 12, 2017 at 11:30 pm

      • “Grok” is from Heinlein’s book Stranger in a Strange Land, and it’s pretty well known.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 13, 2017 at 6:48 am

      • “Atheism is just another religion.” OK, then health is just another disease.


        July 13, 2017 at 7:13 am

      • Anthony — Atheism is a religious belief in the sense that it is a belief concerning religion. But an atheist need not believe IN something the way a theist would. For those it really is merely the absence of belief. Not so for aggressive atheists who put the little “Darwin fish” stickers on their car and run around badmouthing religion like Dawkins does. They’ve driven their atheism way past the mere absence of belief. For them it has absolutely become their religion. And a lot of them are jerks about it.


        July 13, 2017 at 8:11 am

    • I agree with Beverly on this one. I don’t see a rational basis for divine revelation. But neither do I see a rational basis to harangue those who do. I’m frequently annoyed by aggressive atheists who are hostile to religion. Religion can go awry (ie ISIS) but is generally good for individuals, families and society. Why would any rational person want to undermine a force for good? If I have to choose between the atheists and the theists I’m probably siding with the theists because theirs is a better world. What could be more rational than that?


      July 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm

      • it’s even more subtle than that. much more. grok it and you’re part of a very elite club. like those who grok general relativity.

        atheists do not see the ontological difference.

        what’s that?

        God is not like the loch ness monster or yeti or even schroedinger’s cat. did d b cooper succeed? was he a canadian?

        Sein and seiendes are not the same. Sein is not merely the set of all seiendes.

        Beverly Hills Heideggerian

        July 12, 2017 at 10:29 pm

      • Sorry, but “most atheists suck” is not an argument.

        Neither is saying god is ontologically different than the yeti. That’s just an assertion. Sounds pretty desperate really.

        I know it’s uncomfortable not to know what follows death (probably nothing). But those are the breaks.


        July 12, 2017 at 11:39 pm

      • “Sorry, but “most atheists suck” is not an argument.”

        “most atheists suck” may not be an argument in favor of divine revelation. But it is an argument in favor of atheists sucking. Which is the point I was agreeing with Beverly on. Beyond that you’d do well to not make assumptions about what I do or do not believe.


        July 13, 2017 at 8:35 am

      • This Beverly Hills guy is just Robert Mugabe and he just refers to the same stuff over and over (like Being and Time) cuz he thinks it makes him clever but it doesn’t and his WAIS digit span is only 10😂


        July 13, 2017 at 12:24 pm

      • Gondwanaman,

        a digit span of 10 is far above average.

        i suggest that if you have nothing to say, you say nothing, and learn from those who do have something between their ears other than rap songs.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 14, 2017 at 1:25 am

      • Neither is saying god is ontologically different than the yeti. That’s just an assertion. Sounds pretty desperate really.

        an assertion is exactly what it’s not. an interesting question is why people like yourself are desperate to deny the obvious.

        my own explanation for militant atheists is their religion makes them feel superior and/or they like to carry on in some perversions which they know at some level are wrong.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 14, 2017 at 1:28 am

      • I’m being an asshole.


        July 14, 2017 at 8:45 am

    • @ LotB

      Yeah, me reinterpreting GROK to be the sound of your skull splitting after reading Heidegger was a joke.

      Like half of the other commenters here, I read several Heinlein books as a teen.


      July 13, 2017 at 12:02 pm

  8. “Intelligence is required for logical thinking, but most intelligent people don’t habitually use their intelligence to think logically, or rationally. Instead, they do stuff with their emotions, and then after the fact they use their intelligence to rationalize it.”

    I’ve been hoping you would write a post on this and hope you go into more detail in the future. It deserves to be publicized. The idea made the best seller list a few years ago in the form of Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman. And. as the Heinlein quote shows, he was saying it years before that. Most smart folks have probably noticed at one time or another. But its good to know that it’s supported by the research of psychologists and nobel prize wining economists.


    July 12, 2017 at 8:22 pm

  9. Many wise men are Deists. They believe in the uncaused cause and what the Gospel of St. John referred to as Logas, the divine order of the universe. However, they don’t pretend to know all the details. It is the irrational and haughty who get bogged down in excessive theology and dogma.


    July 12, 2017 at 9:16 pm

    • Is there any practical difference between being an atheist and a Deist in terms of how you live your life?

      Jokah Macpherson

      July 12, 2017 at 10:50 pm

      • @ Jokah

        No, there is no practical difference. BTDT’s and other posts are examples of rationalizing.

        Someone emotionally wants to believe in god, or at least not give up on the notion. So he created a superficially rational, but actually unsubstantial, reason for it.

        In this case the reason is that some smart guys in the past, who didn’t even understand physics or cosmology, thought their might be a “first cause” creator, and thought it the most likely case. You may see why this is a lame reason.


        July 13, 2017 at 12:09 am

  10. NeoGaf triggered by “based” Steve King:

    This was deliberate trolling on Steve King’s part

    Otis the Sweaty

    July 12, 2017 at 9:31 pm

  11. Even in the post World War II era, science fiction had plenty of eugenics, both from conservative libertarians like Heinlein and left leaning writers. They know genes matter, even if they will only express it in their fiction writing. Certainly Heinlein had his Howard families, that bred for longevity.

    Mike Street Station

    July 12, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    • But Leftism has changed, gradually. The Progressives (who would believe in eugenics) have been pushed to the back by the secular Christians.


      July 13, 2017 at 7:43 am

  12. why?

    that’s one of the two questions which atheists and natscis can never answer.

    strategery: deny that it’s a legit question.

    that’s cool as long as it’s limited to mundane phenomena. they are what the are. nothing more. nothing less.

    it’s a yuge problem for cosmology. why is the universe as it is and not another way? is this universe the only one? is modal realism serious? etc.

    it’s the one question hitch admitted he had no answer to.

    the second question is morality and beauty and perhaps free will.

    strategery: deny it’s a legit question.

    except no one can actually live his life thinking that morality, beauty, and free will are illusions, just a way of talking.

    Beverly Hills Heideggerian

    July 12, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    • “Free will” is an interesting question. Do all the chemical reactions in our body have free will? Or just those in our brains? Do atoms have free will? If not then it’s hard to see how anything composed of atoms could either. Perhaps systems are so complicated they merely appear to have free will. Not unlike an extremely complex and buggy computer program. If a system is large and complex enough it could have “butterfly effects” going on that give the appearance of free will. To sit down and imagine that the universe could evolve such complex biological machines that walk and talk and “think” without actually having free will is mind blowing. Kind of like an AI android that suddenly realizes it’s a machine ie Westworld.

      Of course, this is all just speculation. I have no idea.


      July 13, 2017 at 9:05 am

      • Now this an obvious fallacy of composition. If atoms need free will for something to be made up of atoms to have free will, than atoms also must be alive, have colors etc. for composite things to be alive, colored etc. But most of us believe that atoms are not alive but animals are. So the composite has different properties. A further argument why this should not work for free will is needed.


        July 13, 2017 at 10:46 am

      • “If atoms need free will for something to be made up of atoms to have free will, than atoms also must be alive, have colors etc. for composite things to be alive, colored etc.”

        That’s a false analogy. Life is merely a self-sustaining biological process made up of many chemical reactions. It doesn’t violate the known laws of physics any more than any other chemical reaction. But “free will” implies that someone’s “will” supersedes physical laws. It implies that atoms exist outside the natural world. Something that exists outside the natural world is, by definition, supernatural.

        Maybe some brilliant physicist will come along and discover how free will doesn’t violate the laws of nature. After all, relativity would have seemed supernatural before Einstein came along. Regardless, no matter how perfect our understanding becomes, I still don’t see how one’s “will” can induce atoms to act contrary to their nature. I’d be very interested to learn just what kind of “will” that is and what it’s made of if not atoms. Midi-chlorians?


        July 13, 2017 at 4:42 pm

      • a third issue which the dawkins crowd will never explain is self-awareness.

        this is because their ontology is what marx termed “vulgar materialism”, and rocks do not know that they are rocks. as chomsky has said, “if there’s no body there’s no mind body problem.” and this is what is actually seen by particle physicists. the physical universe is ultimately a mathematical object and nothing more. esse est percepi.

        Beverly Hills Cop/Ninja

        July 14, 2017 at 2:19 am

    • It’s pretty obvious there’s no free will but mentally healthy people “perceive” it to exist.


      July 13, 2017 at 12:33 pm

      • If there’s no free will than either determinism or fatalism is true. And moral judgements go out the window.

        Lewis Medlock

        July 13, 2017 at 8:35 pm

      • Lewis — Why should determinism preclude moral judgement? Whether one has libertarian free will or not doesn’t change anything.


        July 13, 2017 at 9:59 pm

      • destructure: I don’t see how a person can be regarded as a moral agent if he lacks free will. Unless a person is able to choose a different course of action then the one he takes how can he be judged?

        Lewis Medlock

        July 13, 2017 at 10:50 pm

      • it’s not “obvious” to chomsky. he must not be as smart as Gondwanaman.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 14, 2017 at 1:23 am

  13. It seems to me irrational to assume there is no god considering many great minds are agnostic or religious and most likely some of them were rational; Knuth, Kierkegaard, Von Neumann, and Heisenberg are not slouches.


    July 12, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    • God is a non-falsifiable proposition. As in you could never find any physical evidence or logical proof that would disprove the idea.

      So you don’t have to disprove it. It’s not even in the realm of physical reality, where we live. No assumptions involved.

      As for all those smart guys who might have mentioned a god once, in a book or speech or something… does that really make them believers? Do you think Von Neumann thought a an anthropomorphic intelligence had created the universe, and was interestedly keeping tabs on his daily activities, judging him, etc?


      July 13, 2017 at 12:24 am

      • Yes, so it is an assumption, that is, without proof.

        Three of those guys are/were “true believers.” I never said to consider Christianity or religion. What I am saying is it’s silly to outright reject the possibility of a deity, and furthermore to assume that one doesn’t exist (for the majority of people).


        July 13, 2017 at 8:06 am

      • Most theists do not claim that God is in the realm of physical reality. Of course he is in some sense beyond that (that’s obviously a feature, not a bug). So the empirical unfalsifiability is largely a moot point.

        The traditional metaphysical arguments (first cause, contingency of the world etc.) are far stronger than most people who never bothered to study them believe. It is true that the presuppose some metaphysics (but then, so does modern naturalism) but given rather general assumptions these arguments are quite plausible.

        And “no assumptions involved” is always wrong. There are always assumptions involved, no matter what one does or thinks.


        July 13, 2017 at 10:51 am

      • @ DaddyFrank

        Sorry, but I don’t have to reject the idea of god. It’s not even wrong, because it can’t be tested.

        Just like I don’t have to reject the idea of magical fairies around every corner. Because of how the idea is constructed, it can’t be disproven, ever.

        The assumption would be to treat these inherently unreal ideas as if they were real, which is what you are trying sneakily to do… but only with your favorite one, of course.

        Your emotional preferences aren’t special. Your fear of death doesn’t trump reason.


        July 13, 2017 at 11:58 am

      • @ parrhesia

        Things that aren’t in physical reality, are also known as nonexistent.

        There is no “outside.” That’s just a rhetorical device you’re using so you don’t have to come to grips with your own death.

        So is your talk about metaphysics. Our day-to-day assumptions are based on our experiences and observations, not something a philosopher wrote over a century ago. Kant, Heidegger, Kierkegaard. None of them can save you, sorry.


        July 13, 2017 at 12:12 pm

      • Yes, so it is an assumption.

        You’re just blathering and using ad hominem. In my original response I said the majority of people shouldn’t be making assumptions- it would be irrational to do otherwise; you might fall under that umbrella.


        July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm

      • @ DaddyFrank

        If there’s something I don’t understand about your point, then maybe you should explain it instead of being coy.

        Disbelief in god is not an assumption, but a lack of one. Belief in god is an assumption, a large one, and convenient if you fear death. Which almost everyone does.

        The arguments offered in support of belief in god are about the best example of rationalization I can think of.


        July 13, 2017 at 5:23 pm

      • Lowe – almost everyone fears death at some point in their life, but many people do not fear death at important points in their life. I am not sure that ‘everybody always fears death’ (which, I recognize, is not what you said) is anything but a completely nonsensical statement, although I agree most people fear death from time to time. Poor Von Neumann was terrified of dying when he got sick in his 50s. Despite his eccentrically high IQ, he was a barbarian and an uncultured slob, and I wish he had been more fortunate to have a friend (like I would have been to him) who could have explained that God loves us, that there is nothing to fear in death, the only thing to fear is the lack of love in our hearts which has been called a lack of fear of the Lord (Both the Old and New Testament witness to this).

        howitzer daniel

        July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am

  14. Interesting discussion. Lion, you should know that this is what Maimonides taught.

    Man was originally in an idyllic state in which the rational faculty reigned supreme. Being expelled from the Garden of Eden means being reduced to a lesser state. The account of Adam in Eden is not a historical account of a particular person who failed a test (which would make it irrelevant to everyone else) but
    rather a description of the nature of every person. We were created as a being that is out
    of the Garden of Eden.
    ‘For the intellect that God made overflow unto man and that is the latter’s ultimate perfection, was that which Adam had been provided with before he disobeyed. It was because of this that it was said of him that he was created in the image of God and in His likeness. It was likewise on account of it that he was addressed by God and given commandments, as it says: “And the Lord God commanded, and so on” (Bereishit 2:16). For commandments are not given to beasts and beings devoid of intellect. Through the intellect one distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and that was found in Adam in its perfection and integrity. Fine and bad, on the other hand, belong to the things generally accepted as known, not to those cognized by the intellect. For one does not say: it is fine that heaven is spherical, and it is bad that the earth is flat; rather one says true and false with regard to these assertions… However, when he disobeyed and inclined toward his desires of the imagination and the pleasures of his corporeal senses, inasmuch as it is said: “That the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes” (Bereishit 3:6), he was punished by being deprived of that intellectual apprehension. He therefore disobeyed the commandment that was imposed upon him on account of his intellect and, becoming endowed with the faculty of apprehending generally accepted things, he became absorbed in judging things to be bad or fine.

    (Rambam, Guide of the Perplexed, I, 2)


    July 13, 2017 at 12:26 am

  15. Michael: I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.
    Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing’s more important than sex.
    Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

    – The Big Chill (1983 film)


    July 13, 2017 at 12:34 am

  16. What is rational thinking? I have always considered myself a rational thinker but until I had the experience of working under the direction of low IQ minority people promoted for political reasons, I never would have even considered the evidence of HBD. My sister, who I presume is the most closely related person to me genetically also thinks rationally and she is an SJW who just spent her summer campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn. In some matters it seems that life experience has more impact on rationalizing than genetics. At least people need to be presented with the evidence in order to rationalize it.


    July 13, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    • I’m willing to bet some SJW-types wouldn’t develop your views even if they had to spend 24/7 around dumb minorities.


      July 13, 2017 at 7:13 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: