Post by Ken (INTJ) on Sept 5, 2018 2:07:53 GMT
A Concentric Model of Identity
Assume a genetically homogeneous population of identical clones. These clones would be exposed to different levels of exposure to epigenetic risks. For example, victims of random physical trauma can develop PTSD, depression, or anxiety, and are at a higher risk to use drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. The children of these parents would be at a higher risk for maladaptive mutations, which would then become hereditary. In one generation, a genetically homogeneous population becomes a heterogeneous population. We might call this process differentiation. Differentiation is an inevitable result of entropy, the chaotic principle, and can only be counteracted by an ordering principle. We call the conscious expression of the ordering principle morality, law, or religion.
Divide the differentiated population into group RED and group BLUE. Group RED maintains its genetic integrity and propensity for social success. Group BLUE has mutated due to hereditary epigenetic effects and is psychologically predisposed toward maladaptive behaviors. As an example:
RED: 1 out of every 100,000 members commits murder
BLUE: 1 out of every 10,000 members commits murder
Both REDs and BLUEs are 99%+ non-murderers. It would not be true to say that "the average BLUE commits murder." However, there still exists a tenfold statistical difference between the two groups.
Murder is not an isolated behavior, but often made more likely by certain personality traits, including:
low empathy
low conscientiousness
impulsivity
aggression
low executive functioning
high time-preference
low intelligence
Given that group BLUE is 10x more murderous than group RED, the cause may be that BLUE is 10x more likely (quantitatively or qualitatively) to have the personality traits listed above. We could call these traits "blueish traits."
Furthermore, let us add a geographic element to our model. Suppose that in our hypothetical city, all housing blocks are of equal size, equal value, equal worth, and equal price. If we assume that REDs have an aversion to blueish traits, they will be a segregation effect, even if REDs are not "anti-BLUE," but only anti-violence, anti-stupidity, anti-impulsivity, and anti-sociopathy.
Small individual bias → Large collective bias.
The result will be that REDs flee predominantly BLUE areas. As predominantly RED areas become more in demand, housing prices for RED majority areas will increase. This will decrease BLUE access to these areas. This will create a feedback loop between poverty and BLUEness.
Segregation will then influence the spread of ideas and memes. A "RED culture" will form and a "BLUE culture" will form, which will then express itself in parallel linguistic structures, religious structures, educational structures, and other cultural structures. REDs will dress in clothing which connotes wealth, low time-preference, education, refinement, and sophistication. BLUEs will dress in clothing which is flashy, peacocking, risque, and confident. Even though REDs and BLUEs might both call themselves Christians, RED churches will be formalized and ritualized, whereas BLUE churches will be rowdy and ecstatic. RED schools will be better than BLUE schools. RED children will be brought up to use "proper English" while BLUE children will learn to use "street slang" to demonstrate their participation in the social dominance hierarchy.
If an individual from a BLUE family adopted the language of RED culture, the fashion, the religion, was educated and on the right side of that population's bellcurve, and basically acted RED, then so long as there was no outward phenotypical difference between REDs and BLUEs, the BLUE could assimilate into the RED population.
The problem of race is that populations are marked physically, and this creates a barrier to assimilation. There are clearly dysfunctional white people who bring destruction to those around them, as well as highly competent non-whites. But an individual from a dysfunctional white family might look indistinguishable from one from a good family, whereas blacks don't have that white privilege.
We could say, following Ryan Faulk, that Anglo-White men are the core of American conservative MAGA movement. However, there are some black girls who support Trump.
We could also say that at the core of Judaism, there is an ethnic Ashkenazi phenotype. Still, some self-described Jews don't fit this phenotype. Other people have Jewish facial features, but are not Jewish.
When we examine phenotypes, we see correlations between appearance and behavior. When we think of behaviors, we know that certain populations express those behaviors in greater or less quantities and qualities relative to other populations. When a black person acts nerdy, a stereotypical black response is "he actin white." When a person has a wide jaw and short forehead, a wide nose and well developed muscles, we presuppose that this person is not likely to act "nerdy."
Any movement which claims to be purely moral will nonetheless attract a certain "core phenotype" as a result of the link between physiognomy and psychology. From the left, this will result in accusations of racism. When the left says than an institution is "too white," the left is attacking the morality of that institution, since the two are connected. If we wish to be morally sound, we cannot allow accusations of racism to sway us.
We also know that there is a conflict between conscious views and deep identity. From Sean Last: "Astonishingly, Kidd et al. (2007) studied a congressional race between a Black Democrat and a Black Republican and found that even Blacks who self-identified as Republicans only voted for the Black Republican 12.3% of the time. Views on gay marriage and abortion weren’t predictive of Black voting, and to get the probability of voting Republican over 50%, Kidd et al had to restrict their analysis to Blacks, in a race featuring a Black Republican, who self-identified as Republicans, and who self-identified as evangelic Christians, and who supported the Iraq war, of whom 65% voted Republican."
A person who says, "I'm for X as a moral system" could be like the black Republican who, nevertheless, in his actions, still votes Democrat. If you want both a theory and praxis of morality, you must understand that a person who claims to hold certain beliefs may still be influenced by deeper identity issues. This is the issue with the question, "I'm X% white, can I get into the ethno-state?" While peoples beliefs may change drastically over time, the genetic influences which provide a superstructure for their beliefs remain constant, and are passed on to their children.
The extent to which one must weigh professed information ("I'm a republican") against phenotypical/ancestral information is the extent to which one needs to be certain of the stability of that information. Therefore, in a general election, where voting is a one-time process, physiognomy and ancestry are not necessary. In the formation of an elite team in which secrecy and trust are of the utmost necessity, this "deep information" might prove useful. This may be reflected in Judaism: you only need one Jewish parent (the mother) to continue your participation in the community, but to be part of the Cohanim, your father must be part of the Cohanim as well.
The hyper-urbanism of the internet in our post-religious, post-national world makes trust inessential for gaining and maintaining power. Power is gained by manipulating the base instincts of the masses, not by forming deep and lasting connections between people. Divorce increases, transgenderism increases, and the integrity of identity falls apart as capitalism becomes more powerful through the voluntary surveillance and addiction of Virtual Reality.
The capitalist system as a whole is incredibly stable because it is a market equation which maximizes the selfishness of all individuals. However, certain individuals, because of their instinct for the heroic, will be willing to sacrifice material wealth to regain an organic tribal identity.
Ultimately, the problems of modernity are not new. Job, Solomon, and Christ all questioned the worth of material goods in the face of spiritual nihilism. If we want to regain moral integrity, we must regain genetic integrity, because our genetics contain moral information. Because morality is analog and not digital, our genetic purity need not be digital.
The distinction between digital and analog systems resolves the question of "who is white enough?", because this question is the same as, "who is moral enough?" The answer is that, from a divine point of view, there is no such thing as "moral enough" or "white enough." In every generation, we should strive to be better than those who came before us.
The question of who we would admit into a theoretical state is a question of capitalism vs idealism. To have a genetically pure state would have social and moral advantages. We know from twin studies that twins report extremely high levels of agreement. However, this moral purity would come at the expense of material capital. The compromise is a question of pragmatics, and the answer would change depending on the stated goals.
In hypothetical theoretics, white nationalism makes sense because it eliminates many potential social costs that come along with diversity. However, in practice, white nationalism is an ideology totally divorced from the reality of the Second World War and its consequences. The problem of white nationalism is that it addresses real world analog problems with a digital all-or-nothing solution. The paradoxical combination of ancient instincts with post-modern environments requires a multi-variate approach which allows for positive action to take place at all levels of society and among all populations. By predicating the advancement of morality on the creation of an ethno-state, white nationalism encounters a threshold problem. That is, a certain threshold of support must be met before any positive action can take place -- additionally, someone must be above of certain threshold of "whiteness" (phenotypically) before they can be considered as a moral subject. By taking a concentric approach, similar to the Jewish Cohanim or Hindu Brahmin, moral advocates bypass the threshold problem and are able to effect incremental change without "waiting for the happening." The practical application of a concentric model of identity might be called the Minoritarian Strategy.
Assume a genetically homogeneous population of identical clones. These clones would be exposed to different levels of exposure to epigenetic risks. For example, victims of random physical trauma can develop PTSD, depression, or anxiety, and are at a higher risk to use drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. The children of these parents would be at a higher risk for maladaptive mutations, which would then become hereditary. In one generation, a genetically homogeneous population becomes a heterogeneous population. We might call this process differentiation. Differentiation is an inevitable result of entropy, the chaotic principle, and can only be counteracted by an ordering principle. We call the conscious expression of the ordering principle morality, law, or religion.
Divide the differentiated population into group RED and group BLUE. Group RED maintains its genetic integrity and propensity for social success. Group BLUE has mutated due to hereditary epigenetic effects and is psychologically predisposed toward maladaptive behaviors. As an example:
RED: 1 out of every 100,000 members commits murder
BLUE: 1 out of every 10,000 members commits murder
Both REDs and BLUEs are 99%+ non-murderers. It would not be true to say that "the average BLUE commits murder." However, there still exists a tenfold statistical difference between the two groups.
Murder is not an isolated behavior, but often made more likely by certain personality traits, including:
low empathy
low conscientiousness
impulsivity
aggression
low executive functioning
high time-preference
low intelligence
Given that group BLUE is 10x more murderous than group RED, the cause may be that BLUE is 10x more likely (quantitatively or qualitatively) to have the personality traits listed above. We could call these traits "blueish traits."
Furthermore, let us add a geographic element to our model. Suppose that in our hypothetical city, all housing blocks are of equal size, equal value, equal worth, and equal price. If we assume that REDs have an aversion to blueish traits, they will be a segregation effect, even if REDs are not "anti-BLUE," but only anti-violence, anti-stupidity, anti-impulsivity, and anti-sociopathy.
Small individual bias → Large collective bias.
The result will be that REDs flee predominantly BLUE areas. As predominantly RED areas become more in demand, housing prices for RED majority areas will increase. This will decrease BLUE access to these areas. This will create a feedback loop between poverty and BLUEness.
Segregation will then influence the spread of ideas and memes. A "RED culture" will form and a "BLUE culture" will form, which will then express itself in parallel linguistic structures, religious structures, educational structures, and other cultural structures. REDs will dress in clothing which connotes wealth, low time-preference, education, refinement, and sophistication. BLUEs will dress in clothing which is flashy, peacocking, risque, and confident. Even though REDs and BLUEs might both call themselves Christians, RED churches will be formalized and ritualized, whereas BLUE churches will be rowdy and ecstatic. RED schools will be better than BLUE schools. RED children will be brought up to use "proper English" while BLUE children will learn to use "street slang" to demonstrate their participation in the social dominance hierarchy.
If an individual from a BLUE family adopted the language of RED culture, the fashion, the religion, was educated and on the right side of that population's bellcurve, and basically acted RED, then so long as there was no outward phenotypical difference between REDs and BLUEs, the BLUE could assimilate into the RED population.
The problem of race is that populations are marked physically, and this creates a barrier to assimilation. There are clearly dysfunctional white people who bring destruction to those around them, as well as highly competent non-whites. But an individual from a dysfunctional white family might look indistinguishable from one from a good family, whereas blacks don't have that white privilege.
We could say, following Ryan Faulk, that Anglo-White men are the core of American conservative MAGA movement. However, there are some black girls who support Trump.
We could also say that at the core of Judaism, there is an ethnic Ashkenazi phenotype. Still, some self-described Jews don't fit this phenotype. Other people have Jewish facial features, but are not Jewish.
When we examine phenotypes, we see correlations between appearance and behavior. When we think of behaviors, we know that certain populations express those behaviors in greater or less quantities and qualities relative to other populations. When a black person acts nerdy, a stereotypical black response is "he actin white." When a person has a wide jaw and short forehead, a wide nose and well developed muscles, we presuppose that this person is not likely to act "nerdy."
Any movement which claims to be purely moral will nonetheless attract a certain "core phenotype" as a result of the link between physiognomy and psychology. From the left, this will result in accusations of racism. When the left says than an institution is "too white," the left is attacking the morality of that institution, since the two are connected. If we wish to be morally sound, we cannot allow accusations of racism to sway us.
We also know that there is a conflict between conscious views and deep identity. From Sean Last: "Astonishingly, Kidd et al. (2007) studied a congressional race between a Black Democrat and a Black Republican and found that even Blacks who self-identified as Republicans only voted for the Black Republican 12.3% of the time. Views on gay marriage and abortion weren’t predictive of Black voting, and to get the probability of voting Republican over 50%, Kidd et al had to restrict their analysis to Blacks, in a race featuring a Black Republican, who self-identified as Republicans, and who self-identified as evangelic Christians, and who supported the Iraq war, of whom 65% voted Republican."
A person who says, "I'm for X as a moral system" could be like the black Republican who, nevertheless, in his actions, still votes Democrat. If you want both a theory and praxis of morality, you must understand that a person who claims to hold certain beliefs may still be influenced by deeper identity issues. This is the issue with the question, "I'm X% white, can I get into the ethno-state?" While peoples beliefs may change drastically over time, the genetic influences which provide a superstructure for their beliefs remain constant, and are passed on to their children.
The extent to which one must weigh professed information ("I'm a republican") against phenotypical/ancestral information is the extent to which one needs to be certain of the stability of that information. Therefore, in a general election, where voting is a one-time process, physiognomy and ancestry are not necessary. In the formation of an elite team in which secrecy and trust are of the utmost necessity, this "deep information" might prove useful. This may be reflected in Judaism: you only need one Jewish parent (the mother) to continue your participation in the community, but to be part of the Cohanim, your father must be part of the Cohanim as well.
The hyper-urbanism of the internet in our post-religious, post-national world makes trust inessential for gaining and maintaining power. Power is gained by manipulating the base instincts of the masses, not by forming deep and lasting connections between people. Divorce increases, transgenderism increases, and the integrity of identity falls apart as capitalism becomes more powerful through the voluntary surveillance and addiction of Virtual Reality.
The capitalist system as a whole is incredibly stable because it is a market equation which maximizes the selfishness of all individuals. However, certain individuals, because of their instinct for the heroic, will be willing to sacrifice material wealth to regain an organic tribal identity.
Ultimately, the problems of modernity are not new. Job, Solomon, and Christ all questioned the worth of material goods in the face of spiritual nihilism. If we want to regain moral integrity, we must regain genetic integrity, because our genetics contain moral information. Because morality is analog and not digital, our genetic purity need not be digital.
The distinction between digital and analog systems resolves the question of "who is white enough?", because this question is the same as, "who is moral enough?" The answer is that, from a divine point of view, there is no such thing as "moral enough" or "white enough." In every generation, we should strive to be better than those who came before us.
The question of who we would admit into a theoretical state is a question of capitalism vs idealism. To have a genetically pure state would have social and moral advantages. We know from twin studies that twins report extremely high levels of agreement. However, this moral purity would come at the expense of material capital. The compromise is a question of pragmatics, and the answer would change depending on the stated goals.
In hypothetical theoretics, white nationalism makes sense because it eliminates many potential social costs that come along with diversity. However, in practice, white nationalism is an ideology totally divorced from the reality of the Second World War and its consequences. The problem of white nationalism is that it addresses real world analog problems with a digital all-or-nothing solution. The paradoxical combination of ancient instincts with post-modern environments requires a multi-variate approach which allows for positive action to take place at all levels of society and among all populations. By predicating the advancement of morality on the creation of an ethno-state, white nationalism encounters a threshold problem. That is, a certain threshold of support must be met before any positive action can take place -- additionally, someone must be above of certain threshold of "whiteness" (phenotypically) before they can be considered as a moral subject. By taking a concentric approach, similar to the Jewish Cohanim or Hindu Brahmin, moral advocates bypass the threshold problem and are able to effect incremental change without "waiting for the happening." The practical application of a concentric model of identity might be called the Minoritarian Strategy.
