. . .

If you want adaptability, innovation, and productivity, high trust, low corruption, and low crime of European civ you need European rule of law, and European suppression of impulse. Democracy is counterproductive because favors the bottom prohibiting that domestication (which is the problem in the west – we are no longer paying the cost of demanding adaptation to western (costly) behavioral norms (the most costly in the world), and while this was mis-categorized as ‘oppression’ it’s the reason for our ability to have high trust, low corruption, low crime, high productivity.

Why? Europeans discovered adapted to and applied the laws of the universe more so than all other civilizations combined – at extremely high emotional, psychological, social, and martial costs. Chief among these is our truth before face regardless of cost, and reciprocity in display word and deed, and near-zero tolerance – until the postwar attack on western civ.

Why? Europeans (by accident) evolved law (natural law of tort) as their first institution – meaning democracy and markets were the only possible means of social organization.

Are people equally willing and equally able to pay those costs? It doesn’t appear so. There is no evidence of it. So why fight about it. The united states, and the Holy Roman Empire it imitated, were organized as a weak central government, and a federation of states, each of which could develop norms and traditions according to their wants and needs. The people were only accorded the right of a republican government as a defense against tyranny (of the french aristocracy).

The only value of scale is (a) debt capacity, (a) trade negotiation, (c) war. The rest is just hurting one group for the benefit of another. There is no reason we cannot return to small-state condition, where states can be formed voluntarily by citizens, and develop commons (Physical, formal, and informal) suitable to the wants and needs of the people – but where the people pay the costs and gain the returns of their ‘theories’. Right now the ‘leftist theory’ is destroying every city one at a time at the cost of the reproduction of the people on the right who are naturally NOT hyper-consumptive but are hyperproductive (the protestant ethic).

GROUP STRATEGIES

(1) Every civilization and sub-civilization and every class within it, evolved a competitive group evolutionary strategy, a mythology, a wisdom literature, a ‘logic’ and system of argument to advance it and institutions that persist all of them that are both formal (organizations) and informal (cultural). This occurred in large part during what we call the age of transformation, which like the chalcolithic period varied by region. However, we know the first iteration was in Anatolia, and the second iteration was after the bronze age collapse. Given the evolution of food production, trade, and urban life we would expect to see the emergence of the ‘simplest’ form of social organization (religion) between 2000 and 1500 bc, and between 800 and 100 ad. And we do.

(2) There are a fixed number of variations on those strategies and for explicable reasons, humans exhausted (tried) them. Every strategy can be articulated with simplicity and clarity. (We have enumerated all of them.) They depend on geography, resources, demographic distribution, and diversity of competitors. The maximum position of interaction is in the fertile crescent that contains rivers that minimize the territory that must be defended while concentrating and maximizing production, and these rivers unite the south Eurasian (north Africa, middle east, Iran, and India. Meanwhile, parallel evolution is occurring between slightly more homogenous people of higher neoteny between the two primary river systems in China. Why did China invent the state and not religion?

(3) There are only three methods of influence available, and three organizations for influencing people, and all civilizations make use of them to one degree or another, but civilizations are anchored by the order in which they develop (evolve) these institutions of State(Force in defense or punishment), Empirical Law (Reciprocity and Trade), and Religion (inclusion/ostracization). India developed Religion but neither strong state or empirical law. The middle east developed a religious weak state and failed at law. China developed strong state philosophy but not empirical law, and Europe developed empirical law, then the state, then philosophy but failed at religion. These three institutions each favor different Classes: force – Upper, Trade – Middle, Religion- Lower. An analysis of why each civilization developed these orders is largely due to the organizing method of the people who first asserted control sufficient to create a formal institution. No civilization has succeeded in altering its sequential development of institutions. In other words, we are anchored, and it appears that there is a feedback loop in natural selection within these institutional frames that affect reproductive rates of classes even if it has only mild influence on genetics. ie: northern europeans managed to nearly erase their lower classes and migrated middle classes downward to fill the void, which is why the expansion of the germans into the states, in particular, was effective.

(4) Some of these strategies are productive, some persistent, some parasitic, and some predatory in relation to others. This is a purely empirical statement. The only ‘good’ civ is the Indians at the cost of stagnation (Natural Religion Model). The Chinese are conquering but slow (state model). Europe is hyper adaptive and productive but over-expansionary (commerce model). Gypsies Jews use a parasitic strategy(requiring hosts), and Islam a predatory strategy (destroying and consuming hosts.) The african project at least in west Africa to produce a civilization was cut short by the colonial invasion. The colonial project was incomplete and abandoned them, and they are in the process of formation today and at inspirational speed, although they still risk destruction by Islamic expansion.