(1) Our argument is simple: (a) small ethnocentric nations produce the lowest power distance, (b) the most necessary of political service of the people, (c) the highest incentive to domesticate ones’ demographic distribution (d) the necessity of paying one’s costs of self-domestication without externalizing it on others creating (present) conflicts (e) the highest tolerance for redistribution (f) the least conflict over the production of commons, norms, traditions, and values, (g) the greatest rate of adaptivity (h) and a market for polities. In other words, just as we all prefer custom clothing, goods, and services, we all prefer custom government.

“No more lies. Let 1000 Nations Bloom”

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.

EVOLUTION

(1) Humans within Africa evolved by north vs south isolation and speciation then rehybridization during climate shifts. Humans evolved in leaps Africa > East Africa (and the coastal expansion) > the dry Persian gulf (and the South Eurasian expansion) > Europe > North Eurasian AND the Tibetan Plateau > East Asia. The direction of evolution is called domestication syndrome or neoteny, or pedomorphism depending upon discipline and context. We trade off rate and depth of maturity (in all phases) for lengthening the adaptability of childhood, and lowering aggression. Roughly speaking every speciation event as we isolated and speciated as we moved north, produced between one and one-half standard deviations in cognitive adaptability. We call this rate of adaptability due to extension of and limitation of maturity is what causes median differences in intelligence between groups. But this is more an effect of suppression of survival of those who can’t adapt on one hand and neotenic evolution on the other hand. So these two factors and the number of local competitors and the scarcity of resources in relation to the population produced different demographic distributions. In other words, groups differ largely in rates and depths of maturity and in aggression because of evolutionary adaptation but differences in intelligence between groups have just as much to do with reducing the size of the underclasses (those with higher genetic load) under European and east Asian manorialism than with neoteny.
THE POLITICAL PROBLEM
(1) Our primary differences are sizes of our classes and our eternal preference for kin selection, and the impolitic reality of the degree of the sexual market value of neoteny on one hand and retention or increase in sexual dimorphism on the other. In other words, yes, in all data across all peoples the sexual market value of groups remains constant except at the margins – a topic which is more uncomfortable than even I want to get into (but the data is uncontestable.) So we will remain under kin selected just as all people tend to if it’s their choice. THE JEWISH QUESTION (1) Every civilization revolted against Greco-Roman reason (rational) thought. Every civilization revolted against Anglo Empirical thought. The French literary and moral ‘enlightenment’ was a counter-revolution. The German philosophical and rational revolution was a counter-revolution against it. The Jewish pseudoscientific revolution is nearing its end, and we are dealing with the Islamic counter-revolution against it as well. There is nothing unique about jews of Muslims or anyone else. It’s just that we are currently in the Jewish age of rebellion against western civilization and it’s happening within rather than in their own country. We were and are still just as much affected by the rebellion against reason we call the french revolution. And philosophy is still a clown world because of german phenomenalism.
(2) People do not know their own group strategy and they interpret it as good or moral even if (as in the case of gypsies, jews, and islamists) it’s just anti-civilizational warfare by non-military means, in an era that takes advantage of the European domestication of warfare and our market tolerance for ideas under our Trifunctionalism. Ergo, do the jews know that they are destructive and that they specialize in profiting from baiting into hazard, storytelling, and undermining? No of course not (Well, that’s not true. We have plenty of people like George Soros who state it openly that they’re trying to destroy western civilization).
(3) Our constitution was a statement of natural law, but it was a statement of that age., It’s possible to state natural law in formal logic and complete the European > Greco-Roman > Germanic > Anglo > American project of creating a fully scientific body of law that is fully compatible with the laws of the universe, providing the greatest quality of life and the greatest rate of adaptation possible for mankind. Most of that work would require outlawing various forms of fraud and deceit just as we have incrementally suppressed other kinds of crimes throughout history. Why? Because we evolve crime, fraud, and deceit just as fast as we evolve science, technology production, and cooperation. OUR SOLUTION (1) Our work (my work) is to prohibit the second Jewish destruction of western civilization and the second Semitic dark ages, by completing the European legal program in the Aristotelian > Germanic > English > American legal project producing a ‘bible’ of western civilization. – consisting of our law, where there is no difference between our legal code and the formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of the universe.
We can then use our primary institution – the Law – thereby prohibiting the Abrahamic method of deception which is the method that was used to create the first counter-revolution against truth, reason, science, by Jewish, Christian, Islamic religions. And has been used to create the second Jewish counter-revolution against the truth, reason, science in every discipline: Cantor-Bohr(Replatonization of math), Freud-Boaz-Gould-Yarari (psychological, anthropological, evolutionary pseudoscience), Krugman-Stigliz-Piketty-Keynes (Economic pseudoscience), Marx-Lenin-Trotsky et all (Politics), Gramsci-Adorno-Fromm – Frankfurt (neo-marxism), Derrida Foucault Baudrillard, Lukács et all (postmodernism/sophistry), Friedan-Stienem at all (feminism), Rand-Rothbard (libertarianism), Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol(neoconservatism), Kelsen – Dworkin – Hartt (law).
Every single one of these thinkers and all that followed them used the Abrahamic method of deception which uses the false promise of freedom from formal(logical), physical (scarcity), natural (Retaliation, Altruistic Punishment, Reciprocity, Amorality, Self-interest, markets), and evolutionary laws (mutation, load, selection, kin preference, the necessity of defeating the red queen), by use of deny-and-delay, pilpul (sophistry), storytelling (suggestion, loading, framing, obscuring), critique (undermining, failing to put forward an equally criticizable theory or proposition), special pleading, asymmetrical ethics, evasion of warranty, liability, and accountability. That’s just a shortlist of key figures in each discipline. There are hundreds and hundreds of others. So it’s either the most obsessive conspiracy to deceive in human history of it’s a cultural and possibly genetic proclivity of people within a culture to use the Abrahamic method of deceit just as germans use “Ordnung” without knowing it.
CLOSING
Now you can dislike this, you can try to disagree with it. But if you do you have to make the case that others should continue to tolerate fraud, undermining, and genetic, cultural, institutional, informational destruction from within.
So the question isn’t race or religion. The question is Lying, Fraud, and Warfare – or not. Either you’re advocating for lying, fraud, and warfare or you are arguing for continuing the European project of transcendence of man out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, and the conquest of the universe. How: by incremental discovery, adaptation to and application of the laws of the universe by the use of those laws, primarily that law of cooperation we call the natural law of tort, that requires we grant one another self-determination by self-determined means in exchange for reciprocity in display, word, and deed by sovereignty and reciprocity in our demonstrate interests. Or more clearly: either you are fit for this universe and for continuing mankind’s evolutionary journey – or not. Because if not, you are a parasite or predator.
That’s the only moral position you can hold without lying, defrauding, stealing, or warring instead.

Leave a Reply