The rise of left-wing ideologies are evolution’s mechanism to weed out the unfit within technologically advanced societies.

How should you react if you meet an obviously “woke” person? Perhaps her hair is dyed blue, she is dressed in black, and she carries a rainbow handbag. Should you simply avoid her?

From a zoological perspective, bright colors indicate that an organism is poisonous, something known as aposematism. The opposite of camouflage, this is telling you, “I am dangerous. Stay away.” But, since a number of studies have shown that liberals are shorter, weaker, and higher in anxiety than conservatives, it’s more likely that she is really what is known zoologically as a “mimic.” Just as the hoverfly wants you to think it’s a wasp, the woke person, as a protection mechanism, wants you to believe she’s an aggressive punk.

Naturally, though, you will feel a certain degree of animosity towards her. She is an obvious agent of the tyranny of our age, of wokeness. She was there intimidating people into raising their fists in self-defense during the George Floyd Riots; she’s on Twitter getting British people prosecuted for expressing anger about the murders of three young girls in Southport, England, at the hands of a second-generation Rwandan immigrant; she may even be a school teacher who’s telling your children to consider changing their genders. What a horrible enemy of all that is civilized and good!

But are we judging her too hastily? Is she actually some kind of ethno-nationalist in disguise? Rather than avoid her and despise her, should we not politely thank her and perhaps even offer to take her out for dinner at her favorite vegetarian restaurant? In Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, my coauthor and I present the case that this is exactly what we should do. 

Wokeness, we argue, is a group-level adaptation, a necessary means to restore a group’s genetic mental and physical health, and, correlated with those markers of health, its high religiosity and high ethnocentrism. Consequently, the group is able to triumph in the war of group selection and, indeed, will not be wiped out by the next mega-disaster that nature will inevitably throw at us. 

How does wokeness achieve this? It fosters an environment in which everyone but the strongly genetically healthy are persuaded to not pass on their genes. In that sense, this woke young woman with her sociology degree is a nationalist heroine: she is laying down her own genetic interests for the good of her ethnic group and, ultimately, for the survival of her species. 

How is this the case? To really make sense of it, we have to return to the Industrial Revolution. Until about 1800, humanity was under intense Darwinian selection, with a child mortality rate of about 50 percent. This process, in selecting for genetic physical health in every generation, weeded out mutations, which almost always negatively affect an organism, thereby keeping the species healthy. 

As we show in the book, those genetically healthy enough to survive childhood were then sexually selected for intelligence (the ability to better solve problems and so pass on genes), mental health (the ability to deal with adversity and not get cast out or killed in a fight), pro-social personality (the ability to increase survivability by fitting into a group), ethnocentrism (a trait that helps a group resist being conquered by other groups), conservatism (a tendency to prioritize group interests over individual “feelings” and the acceptance of natural inequalities and hierarchies) and religiosity (a series of adaptive instincts which seems to equate adaptive behaviors with the will of God).

Those who are firm religious believers may not like the idea that their convictions are genetic, but the evidence suggests that this is at least partly true. According to twin studies, the tendency to undergo religious experiences is about 70 percent genetic, while a conservative disposition is up to 60 percent genetic. Since both religiosity and conservatism are selected for concomitantly, they are packed together in a process known as pleiotropy. 

To varying degrees, all of the previously mentioned adaptive traits are genetically related. Intelligent people are genetically mentally and physically healthier. This makes sense because the brain accounts for about 84 percent of the genome, rendering it a huge target for mutation. So, if your body is high in mutation, leading to a suboptimal immune system, your brain will be very high in mutations indeed. 

Medical, technological, and other advances heralded by the Industrial Revolution caused child mortality rates to collapse in developed countries from 50 percent to less than 1 percent today. The result? A massive spike in mutations. 

Which brings us back to our blue-haired woke friend: or as we may now think of her, a spiteful mutant. Those who carry these mutations would obviously deviate from that which was the pre-Industrial norm, which was to be extremely conservative (and, thus, genetically healthy). As this model would predict, liberalism is correlated with multifarious markers of mutation and poor genetic health: shortness, weakness, being physically unattractive, mental illness, dying younger, and being less able to resist and recover from cancers. 

In developed countries, intelligence is weakly negatively correlated with fertility. Intelligent people want fewer children in part because they are more environmentally sensitive. They are also less instinctive, as their high intelligence allows them to rise above instinctive responses and logically solve problems—problem-solving being the essence of intelligence. 

However, this also means that intelligent people are far more dependent on living in a challenging environment to spur them toward reproduction. The threat of death—even the artificial “priming” of people with images of death—tends to stimulate otherwise intellectual people toward an instinctual desire to reproduce. According to the studies that I examine in my book, such challenging ecologies have high mortality rates in general and child morality rates of around 50 percent. Without this environment, instincts fail to kick in and the intelligent don’t want to have children. Hence, in less-challenging environments, it is those with low IQs who have more children. Since lower intelligence is genetically associated with poor health, the population as a whole weakens.

If this trend extends for too long, humanity could become so sickly that when the next disaster occurs—a massive meteor strike that brings down civilization, for example—we would almost all die out, apart from isolated groups of hunter-gatherers. In particular, groups living in cold and difficult ecologies, left unhealthy and with poor problem-solving abilities, would be decimated. Europeans would die off. 

But then God created the group-level evolutionary strategy known as wokeness.

What does wokeness accomplish? In hijacking the culture, wokeness places environmentally sensitive people on a maladaptive life roadmap by encouraging them not to have children. The woke believe that humans are wicked and are devastating the environment; males and females should change their sex and render themselves infertile; life should be about hedonism rather than having kids, so they abort inconvenient babies; life has no meaning, so they trade offspring for money. 

Among ethnic Europeans, only people who are for genetic reasons very strongly conservative will be resistant to the woke onslaught and will, consequently, pass on their genes. As this process would predict, if you control for intelligence, the big predictor of fertility is conservatism, with liberalism being the big predictor of sterility.

Those of low intelligence are also eliminated: Every TV commercial and other mainstream broadcast propaganda effectively instructs them that the only acceptable kind of pairing, if a European is involved at all, is a mixed-race one. Following these instructions, they will remove themselves from the European group.

Wokeness goes further: it brings about a growth in nationalist sentiment. Theft and violence are excused as reasonable responses to systemic oppression and effectively permitted. The threat of violence will make people more instinctive and thus more religious and ethnocentric. Diversity, equity, and inclusion policies (DEI) also increase the peril of living in the West by encouraging utter incompetence and societal breakdown. That, in turn, makes people generally more instinctive and white people especially more resentful, as DEI policies work to their detriment. Political polarization means conservatives are more likely to procreate with other conservatives. 

Intelligent people are highly conformist; they better understand what the predominant worldview is and can exercise “effortful control” to conform. That means that when society is woke, intelligent people tend to conform to that trend (along with the mutants) and, so, resign from the gene pool. Falling IQs eventually cause civilizational collapse. The collapse of civilization will return us to brutal Darwinian conditions, spurring the intelligent to reproduce and ultimately rendering the species genetically healthy once more. 

The species must carry on and ethnic groups, as a kind of subspecies, must carry on. In the face of very high mutational meltdown, it is predictable that evolution would, just in case, innovate a mechanism that would return us to genetic health, ensuring that the species carry on into the future. That innovation is wokeness. 

So, if you are a conservative, perhaps you should not cross the road the next time a blue-haired, black-clad, rainbow-festooned female sociology student makes her way towards you. Instead, you should greet her and say, “Thank you so much. Thank you for all that you are doing in order make sure that we survive.”