Driving and Thinking, part 1

by Richard Gerrison

RECENTLY MY WIFE AND I drove two hours to our home town to visit with family for Easter lunch, and on longer dives we always enjoy a good conversation to pass the time. These talks will be about anything and everything: plans for the summer, reorganizing furniture in the house, how we think our daughter is doing lately, and so on. But in the last two years since my conversion from Christianity to Cosmotheism, a topic she finds contentious and distasteful often rears its head during these drives: race. Being a devout Christian herself, my wife firmly holds that god (the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh/Jehovah, that is) created all humanity equal and that any perceived inequalities between various groups is merely a superficial matter of culture and circumstance that can be overcome, and that any one person has as much potential as any other, regardless of their racial identity.

Yesterday on our drive she tried to assert this point once again. “Richard. I’m a teacher, and I’m telling you that circumstance has a greater impact on intellectual and artistic development than anything else. We have two foster children in our center right now, brothers. The older one, who is four, spent three years with his neglectful mother and is behind on all metrics; from speech, to motor skills, to social behavior. But the one-year-old who was taken from the mother on day one and has only ever known the healthy environment of his foster home is progressing excellently in all markers. Now, because of the poor nutrition and lack of parental support, the older one will take time to recover from being behind, if he ever fully does; his brain might have missed enough key nutrients and stimulation during early development that it will never reach its potential. Meanwhile his younger brother is being well taken care of physically and mentally, and was from day one, and he will be able to reach his potential much more easily. They have the same genetics, but circumstances are going to make all the difference for them.”

I had heard her make this point before, not necessarily this anecdote, but the general concept was one she held to firmly. And this time I was prepared with a sound reply to her position. “I completely agree that circumstance is the primary determinant of potential and performance, the difference here is that you look at individuals on a short timeline and I look at groups on a long timeline. Let’s say Group A and Group B are both populations of a hundred thousand individuals that start out at the same baseline for intelligence, cultural and artistic development, and emotional expression. Group A moves into an environment where they will be able to provide pregnant mothers and growing children with perfect nutrition, and with everything they need for physical development; while Group B lives in an environment that provides relatively poor-quality food that won’t always provide enough nutrition — and sometimes not even enough calories.”

To follow the set-up of the scenario, I asked her “Would this create a difference in the physical and mental development of the two groups?”

She replied, “Yes, it would.”

I asked her, “Before I continue, would you also say that you agree that genetics does play at least some part in determining a person’s physical and mental development? My brother and I have the same parents who fed us the same food growing up, had the same education at the same school by all the same teachers, but my brother is five inches taller than me with a leaner build, while I always performed far better academically than he ever did, leaving the only real factor to explain the differences between us would be our different genetics.” She thought it over for a moment and said “I suppose that makes sense to a degree.”

So I continued. “Ok then, moving on — let us take the circumstances for Group A and for Group B and suppose that they will remain relatively consistent for several thousand years, tens of thousands possibly. Then the case we will have is that Group A will be full of individuals who are meeting their physical genetic limiters, people who reach the maximum height that their genes support because they will get all the nutrition needed to do so, for example. They will also be able to develop their brains to the maximum potential allowed by their genes. And, humans being humans, they will generally be attracted to the more physically developed and intelligent members of the opposite sex, yes?”

“Yes,” she replied.

“So that means through unconscious natural selection over thousands of years, in a group of people where nearly all are hitting their genetic potential, those with greater genetic potential will be picked over those with lower; the stronger and healthier, and the intelligent and creative, are more likely to be chosen by quality mates to reproduce. Over time this selection will slowly raise the group’s average of physical and mental prowess, as people select for these qualities in their mates — making these averages much higher than they were when the group started out thousands of years ago. Is that fair to say?”

It was at this point, I think, my wife began to see where this was going because she was very caution and tentative in providing an affirmative “yes” to what I had outlined.

“So then compare that to Group B, among whom nutrition is the main limiting factor rather than genetics — that means that the latent genetic potential of individuals who could possibly be more intelligent or more fit is rarely if ever revealed and actualized, because none of them are reaching it. From which would follow that the entire population would be more ‘average’ with fewer and smaller differences between the best and the worst individuals compared to Group A. So those selecting mates in Group B will be less particular because there are no real ideal mates to chase after, and comparatively fewer poor mates to avoid. So, over the thousands of years in our timeline, those in Group B will be almost completely stagnant as far as raising their group’s average genetic potential is concerned.”

At this point, my wife was rather quiet. I assume she had come close to guessing the conclusion I was building toward, and realized her own argument had been turned against her — and that the points she had used to defend her disagreement with my Cosmotheist beliefs had actually been shown to be an affirmation of my position.

So, having laid the groundwork and received the necessary concessions on her part, I sallied on with the last part of my argument.

“So, if after thousands to tens of thousands of years of raising the average genetic potential of Group A through unconscious selective breeding, and thousands to tens of thousands of years of the stagnation of the average genetic potential of Group B; what would happen if we suddenly moved Group B into Group A’s territory? Group B will now be able to begin reaching their genetic potential because they will finally benefit from an abundance of nutrition and sufficient caloric intake. And, according to your initial argument, now Group B should be able to begin competing with Group A in terms of physical and mental prowess, yes?”

She had to have known her premise had been undermined, so she gave a concession to me in an attempt to be able to still hold her position to some degree. “Well no, not right off the bat; it will probably take a couple generations for Group B to really start benefiting from their new environment.”

Which was just the opening that was needed to deal the final blow in this verbal duel. “I’m sure they would start benefiting from it immediately, but even if you gave them one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred years of being able to benefit from this new circumstance, in reality, how much is that going to compare against thousands to tens of thousands of years of benefit? Even after 300 years, any improvement by Group B wouldn’t even be noticeable to members of Group A because Group A was so much more advanced than B when they were put together — and Group A isn’t just going to stop advancing themselves, giving B the time to ‘catch up eventually.’”

To my surprise, my wife then opened the door for further conversation on this matter when she asked me, “Yes but wouldn’t Group B be able to develop at a faster rate because of their exposure to Group A’s more advanced society?” And that part of the conversation will be covered in part 2.

* * *

Source: Author

Previous post

My $30,000 Offer, update 1: No Takers! Why Not?

Next post

Lessons from Jewish 'Holy Books': Rabbi Shila's Authority

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Johnny Reb
Johnny Reb
25 April, 2022 7:27 pm

Your wife and mine are “Two peas in the same pod”. I can’t tell you how trying this has been for me in our 45 years of marriage. Sometimes I just want to hang myself…

26 April, 2022 9:35 am

The natural selection by the genetic filtering imposed by civilization is as real as natural selection by climate, geography, predators etc. It is described in a book “The 10,000 Year Explosion”.

I’ve just started reading a book “The Art of More” which is about the impact of mathematics on civilization. It opens up with the remark that the ability to quantitatively describe more than a handful of objects (beyond two or three is “more”) is not innate but must be learned. That ability is developed (called counting) and systematized by the brightest in a population and then and taught to the rest. Mathematics (and writing) make an advanced civilization possible and in return, an advanced civilization spurns on mathematics.

26 April, 2022 10:49 am

I’m never been married, but I’ve had a couple of girlfriends who held such naive views. So do most of my family, although I’ve made some progress with a few of them.

26 April, 2022 12:32 pm

I was curious as to the author and searched the name Richard Gerrison. I found plenty of Richard Garrisons but not a single “Gerrison”. So I must ask: is this person real, or just a prop to promote a point? Too much background to this tale remains hidden. Is this “Gerrison” a member of the National Alliance? To me, husband & wife tales like this always sound contrived unless there’s actual evidence that they exist. I mean, one man becomes a sudden atheist (from his Christian wife’s point of view) and they go on like nothing happened? Because this kind of change is a marriage-shattering event and yet that possibility is completely ignored. Now, maybe it’s all true: the surname, the circumstances, the two hour drive through the country. But,… Read more »

Kevin Alfred Strom
Kevin Alfred Strom
Reply to  R.L.
27 April, 2022 9:05 pm

We don’t reveal which authors use noms de guerre unless we have permission to do so. As for the “ring of truth,” it hardly matters as far as the point about group evolution being made is concerned. But certainly some marriages are stronger than Yahweh!

Reply to  R.L.
27 April, 2022 9:57 pm

Hi R.L. I am Richard G, the author of the article, and I’ll hopefully clear a few things up here. I am not an alliance member at this time, simply a supporter. I do used a pseudonym at this time to appease my wife’s fear of me getting doxed. Yes this is a real conversion that happened between my wife and I, and we DID almost get divorced over my conversion from christendom (especially as I was employed as a pastor at the time) to cosmotheism, but after a lot of hard work and the birth of our daughter we have returned to a happy marriage for the most part. You can actually see my posts a out both of these things on the White Biocenteism Forum. Hope that clears… Read more »

William W Williams * National Alliance Chairman
William W Williams * National Alliance Chairman
Reply to  R.L.
28 April, 2022 12:36 pm

It’s none of your business whether Richard’s an Alliance member or not, or if he uses a pseudonym on NV for that matter. He explains why he uses a pseudonym. It’s fine with me that he is an Alliance supporter. That’s more than you are. “R.L.” doesn’t exactly have the ring of truth for a given name. So what? Are you one who would “dox” him if you could find Richard Gerrison’s given name in an Internet search? Richard hashed out the dilemma he and his wife have been having over his conversion from Presbyterian spookcraft — being a minister of that denomination, no less — to reality-based Cosmotheism on No one there doubted his story like you are doing here. It just shows that religion is the biggest… Read more »