Indeed, I suspect that they do understand the reality of a multiplicity of human natures, and that this is why they are so enthusiastic about merging the species into a single 'eurasian-negroid' race.
The anthrophysiocratic principle would seem to imply a multipolar, distributed subsidiarity as the best possible overarching governance model - in other words, to allow each group to govern itself as it sees fit. Which is actually quite liberal at the highest level; somewhat paradoxically so, as it is a liberality that embraces illiberalism.
>>But anthrophysiocracy also acknowledges that human nature is not a universal norm. It knows there is not one human nature, but many human natures, each grounded in the biology of its ancestrally distinct human group. Since human nature shapes human organization, there can be no one proper organization for every human population.<<
This is basically what the EthnoSociology lectures of Professor Aleksandr Dugan end with as well... that there are 'Many Humanitys & no *Humanity as such* that the Liberals & Globalists claim*.'
Feel Free Good Fren to also check out Professor Dugin's EthnoSociology works here:
A secret, perhaps still mostly subconscious, aspiration of the ruling global elite might be summarized by the popular phrase "Fake it until you make it." Through their monopolies on legacy media, academia, corporate culture, Silicon Valley, Madison Avenue, and Hollywood, the elite FAKE the axiom that disparate human lineages are cognitively and behaviorally interchangeable, until such time as they can MAKE this axiom true, through sociopolitical and, increasingly, outright genetic manipulation. If evolution failed to produce uniform human populations, it damn well should have. The Transhuman future will be one in which the random, cruel, and unjust evolutionary process will overthrown, and replaced by a revolutionary system defined by orderliness, beneficence, and justice. Human nature will only be the start; all of nature--Life Itself--will succumb, in time, to Intelligent Redesign. The theme of centuries to come will be the transformation of the actual into the ideal: of what is into what ought to be.... How well this will actually work, against what resistance, and to what unintended effects, of course, remains to be seen: we're still in the infancy of what will be universally regarded, for good or ill, as the greatest revolution not just in human history, but in the history of life on Earth. For now, the elite will keep pushing the Noble Lie until they can turn it into the Noble Truth.
"The unconstrained vision aligns more closely with liberal or progressive ideologies, advocating for active intervention and reform to address societal issues. The constrained vision, on the other hand, aligns more closely with conservative or libertarian ideologies, stressing the importance of maintaining order, sublimating vice, and demanding individual responsibility."
John Mearsheimer (ok ok swamp, boomer, whatever) made an elementary but very good point in a recent interview with the appalling bully Piers Morgan. He said that liberalism recognises (i.e. Hobbes and Locke) that there are many competing individual interests in a society and that they are the cause of intragroup discord. Further, he said, it is the purpose of liberal governments to permit and balance these interests while not favouring or penalising any of them., except I suppose in instances of insurrection. This being the case, liberals should be (and until quite recently were) in favour of precisely the sorts of things you attribute above to conservatives. They should also oppose immigration as contributing further to the fund of social discord and reducing order while increasing the prevalence of vice. No pre-war Anglo government was anything other than liberal, and no pre-war Anglo country was in favour of non-European immigration.
I do *not* say this as an impotent, Sargon-style reproach to contemporary liberals (READ LOCKE! LIVE UP TO YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES!) but rather to point out that the 'racist liberal' meme is real *in essence*, to the extent that the word 'racist' is a redundancy: LIBS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!
Further obvious to me in the above is the exiguous influence of ideology in the functioning of the state: liberal states then, liberal states now; near-zero non-Euro immigration then, mass non-Euro immigration now.
There was a reason that genetics was a field the MSM would cover extensively in the 2000's and early 2010's....but then it stopped when genetics showed:
Evolution by natural selection couldn't be true thanks to genetic entropy, positive vs negative mutations rates, gene fixation rates and a few bizarre mutations.
Homos were a product of environment as the separated twins data kept rolling in. "Born this way" quickly gave way to "abused into this as a child."
Men and women are grossly different, not just physically, mentally, psychologically and yes, genetically. It's like we are two separate species.
Biological race was true and is a thing. The 97% similar thing is based on a bs comparison of blood compositions, not genetics.
Behavior at a minimum is 50% genetic, probably closer to 80%.
And the anti-realist, blank-slatter, technocratic narcissists that make up the elite screamed "ignore" and much of this disappeared from the main stream.
Reality is a bitch. But if you get to know her, and adjust accordingly, the "sex" can be amazing.
God help us to abandon the lies and shibboleths of this rotten, degenerate European age.
I first came to this same conclusion in the 90's by two means: First, if you watch enough Nature documentaries you will start to realize that all primates (monkeys, baboons, chimps, gorillas, etc.) have an innate social structure, and that structure is remarkably similar to basic human social structures. The second was my introduction to the works of Lev Gumilev by a Russian colleague. Gumilev was way ahead of his time, but I was rather surprised that he was allowed to publish his work under the Communist regime. He theorizes that changes to the average nature of personalities and it's effect on populations can occur in very short time periods - hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. For example, he attributes the post-war demise of Europe to the loss of aggressive, risk-taking men by means of 19th century immigration and 20th century wars, which prevented their genes from being passed on in Europe. It is difficult to believe that the de-masculinization of European society is due purely to social restructuring.
A good essay and a brave one. However, recent work in the polygenic field tend to argue against large differences (1sd) in GWAS. Sure, there are those who make the pgsEDU argument, but they tend to drastically underestimate the extent to which terrible ideas in K-12 systems can spread across borders and jurisdictions rapidly, whilst good ideas in education (especially if time-honoured) are largely overlooked and studiously ignored.
It's worth looking at London as an exception, educationally, in terms of how the collision of a few good ideas at the same time managed to raise African British educational outcomes under exam conditions, basically eliminating racial differences in earnings for the 18 to 30 category.
Here's the far more likely hypothesis. Relatively small differences (0.1 to 0.2 sd) tend to compound over time and intergenerationally, which only an extremely fortuitous set of circumstances and rare wisdom can reverse. In a sense, this creates a well without a ladder- and despite all the folly of youthful optimism it seems to be an incredibly hard situation to reverse, requiring a rare mix of 'unconstrained' ambition paired with 'constrained' pragmatism. In nearly forty years of watching current affairs in the UK, with literally thousands of announcements of public policy, I've only ever seen it happen twice with the receipts to prove it.
Let's look at a historical analogy- the American Irish. They languished for over a century in the most pitiful and deprived condition. Achieving political power hardly helped the American Irish at all- for the simple reason that politics lacks the scalpel to change things for the better, other than through some fairly obvious 'equality under the law' reforms. What did help was the economics of timing, and a period of almost unlimited requirement for blue collar labour. That being said, without incredibly strict Catholic schooling systems, it's highly unlikely the American Irish would have ever been able to capitalise on the labour gains of a few generations and leverage itself into somewhat cohort-wide upward social mobility.
What is system-wide in the West in education is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Toxic compassion as a form of well-meaning help really doesn't help. We know. It's been tested. Other than a very modest public investment in classroom training for teachers, stricter schools seems to be one of the primary reasons why London schools have so quickly managed to raise educational outcomes.
And it's not as though the Tories didn't try checking the results to see whether they were real. There was a recent attempt to reverse an admittedly substantial degree of system-wide grade inflation. However, in this regard it wasn't the Black British daughters of single mothers raised in poor London Boroughs with endemic knife-crime who were found wanting, but rather the privileged scions of Eton, victims of coddled parenting and soft schooling who were found to be 'not top drawer'.
Thank you for such a good example of clear writing. Your progression of ideas made me think, and empowered the creative leap from simply arguing that great policy only occurs when both liberals and conservatives bring their best ideas to the table. If only it were that simple. Instead, it seems to be the case that rare societal circumstances where the unconstrained view has the mandate, but the constrained view is left to run the show; to test, measure and implement; is the only time such ambitious projects can work.
I can't see that happening in the West in the next decade- can you?
“The aim of eugenics is to represent each class or sect by its best specimens; that done, to leave them to work out their common civilization in their own way.” – Francis Galton, Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims, 1904
Language nit: on your paragraph introducing Steven Pinker, you say "Far from being a blank slate, human nature is an intricate tapestry woven from millions of years of evolutionary choices."
I "object" to the word "choices", as it suggests evolution is a directed action with a "mind" or something to choose among the available options. But it is of course a passive result of the organism having (or genes or alleles creating) a phenotype better adapted to the given environment within which it exists so that it can reproduce that feature or trait contributing to the survival of that organism's genome. I would be happier with the phrase "evolutionary selections", or other language supporting the passive nature of what is observed. :-)
Even people who do know better often inadvertently anthropomorphize this discussion/ description.
Just as some populations fare better or worse with a diet of milk, wheat, or rice, so too do some populations fare better or worse with different social structures. Liberal democracy might work for one group, Christian conservatism for another, and authoritarian stratocracy for a third.
I think you've circled all the way back around to post modernism. :-(
While I tend to be morally universalist on substantive issues (murder should be illegal everywhere) I tend to be more relativistic about forms of government. America is a federated republic while the United Kingdom is a unitary constitutional monarchy; and that is even with the demographic similarities between those two nations. Imagine what the differences in statecraft are between Africans and East Asians? I wonder how governance is different between races and what kind of state we can deduce from biology?
if the weather, soil, or waters on which a people evolve (even the food they have access to) shapes them, they it is logical they will be different, Unique. What kind of failure of imagination person has a problem with this? it makes life More interesting. "people have to be all the same" oh really? they are not, not even in the same family, because humans are hyper adaptive. Utopia, like perfection is a toxic idea. there are trade offs, and the only utopia will be on a dead planet, or a blank canvas...which changes once something is put on it. fantasy is always better that reality, because it is made to suit the individual imagining it. No 2 people will imagine the same utopia, because even if they are twins, they will be too different. and we now know epigenetics are a thing.....
I realize that this nit is entirely tangential to the argument made and supports deployed, but I must pick it nonetheless, as I am pedant and disagreeable boor. I should say that otherwise, I have no disagreements with the essay and endorse it. But I find it curious that the following section is left hanging and unqualified, as if our Author agrees with it implicitly.
"What Pinker calls the tragic view is essentially Thomas Sowell's constrained vision. It sees human nature as inherently flawed, marked by selfishness, and limited in its capacity for change. Social structures that ignore, or try to eradicate, these innate tendencies, inevitably fail. Rather than trying to create a perfect society, we should focus on creating systems that mitigate and sublimate our flaws while allowing for the greatest amount of freedom and prosperity."
> We should maximize freedom and prosperity
Why? It seems to me that attempting to do this is how we got here.
Indeed, I suspect that they do understand the reality of a multiplicity of human natures, and that this is why they are so enthusiastic about merging the species into a single 'eurasian-negroid' race.
The anthrophysiocratic principle would seem to imply a multipolar, distributed subsidiarity as the best possible overarching governance model - in other words, to allow each group to govern itself as it sees fit. Which is actually quite liberal at the highest level; somewhat paradoxically so, as it is a liberality that embraces illiberalism.
You will start to understand the world better when you can acknowledge that IQ is genetic. Every race has an average IQ.
>>But anthrophysiocracy also acknowledges that human nature is not a universal norm. It knows there is not one human nature, but many human natures, each grounded in the biology of its ancestrally distinct human group. Since human nature shapes human organization, there can be no one proper organization for every human population.<<
This is basically what the EthnoSociology lectures of Professor Aleksandr Dugan end with as well... that there are 'Many Humanitys & no *Humanity as such* that the Liberals & Globalists claim*.'
Feel Free Good Fren to also check out Professor Dugin's EthnoSociology works here:
https://arktos.com/product/ethnosociology/
https://arktos.com/product/ethnos-and-society/
A secret, perhaps still mostly subconscious, aspiration of the ruling global elite might be summarized by the popular phrase "Fake it until you make it." Through their monopolies on legacy media, academia, corporate culture, Silicon Valley, Madison Avenue, and Hollywood, the elite FAKE the axiom that disparate human lineages are cognitively and behaviorally interchangeable, until such time as they can MAKE this axiom true, through sociopolitical and, increasingly, outright genetic manipulation. If evolution failed to produce uniform human populations, it damn well should have. The Transhuman future will be one in which the random, cruel, and unjust evolutionary process will overthrown, and replaced by a revolutionary system defined by orderliness, beneficence, and justice. Human nature will only be the start; all of nature--Life Itself--will succumb, in time, to Intelligent Redesign. The theme of centuries to come will be the transformation of the actual into the ideal: of what is into what ought to be.... How well this will actually work, against what resistance, and to what unintended effects, of course, remains to be seen: we're still in the infancy of what will be universally regarded, for good or ill, as the greatest revolution not just in human history, but in the history of life on Earth. For now, the elite will keep pushing the Noble Lie until they can turn it into the Noble Truth.
"The unconstrained vision aligns more closely with liberal or progressive ideologies, advocating for active intervention and reform to address societal issues. The constrained vision, on the other hand, aligns more closely with conservative or libertarian ideologies, stressing the importance of maintaining order, sublimating vice, and demanding individual responsibility."
John Mearsheimer (ok ok swamp, boomer, whatever) made an elementary but very good point in a recent interview with the appalling bully Piers Morgan. He said that liberalism recognises (i.e. Hobbes and Locke) that there are many competing individual interests in a society and that they are the cause of intragroup discord. Further, he said, it is the purpose of liberal governments to permit and balance these interests while not favouring or penalising any of them., except I suppose in instances of insurrection. This being the case, liberals should be (and until quite recently were) in favour of precisely the sorts of things you attribute above to conservatives. They should also oppose immigration as contributing further to the fund of social discord and reducing order while increasing the prevalence of vice. No pre-war Anglo government was anything other than liberal, and no pre-war Anglo country was in favour of non-European immigration.
I do *not* say this as an impotent, Sargon-style reproach to contemporary liberals (READ LOCKE! LIVE UP TO YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES!) but rather to point out that the 'racist liberal' meme is real *in essence*, to the extent that the word 'racist' is a redundancy: LIBS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!
Further obvious to me in the above is the exiguous influence of ideology in the functioning of the state: liberal states then, liberal states now; near-zero non-Euro immigration then, mass non-Euro immigration now.
There was a reason that genetics was a field the MSM would cover extensively in the 2000's and early 2010's....but then it stopped when genetics showed:
Evolution by natural selection couldn't be true thanks to genetic entropy, positive vs negative mutations rates, gene fixation rates and a few bizarre mutations.
Homos were a product of environment as the separated twins data kept rolling in. "Born this way" quickly gave way to "abused into this as a child."
Men and women are grossly different, not just physically, mentally, psychologically and yes, genetically. It's like we are two separate species.
Biological race was true and is a thing. The 97% similar thing is based on a bs comparison of blood compositions, not genetics.
Behavior at a minimum is 50% genetic, probably closer to 80%.
And the anti-realist, blank-slatter, technocratic narcissists that make up the elite screamed "ignore" and much of this disappeared from the main stream.
Reality is a bitch. But if you get to know her, and adjust accordingly, the "sex" can be amazing.
God help us to abandon the lies and shibboleths of this rotten, degenerate European age.
"Sowell, being conservative, believes that the **unconstrained** view of human nature is the correct view" -- typo?
Good to see such unilateral agreement with this week's rather vanilla and uncontroversial topic!
I first came to this same conclusion in the 90's by two means: First, if you watch enough Nature documentaries you will start to realize that all primates (monkeys, baboons, chimps, gorillas, etc.) have an innate social structure, and that structure is remarkably similar to basic human social structures. The second was my introduction to the works of Lev Gumilev by a Russian colleague. Gumilev was way ahead of his time, but I was rather surprised that he was allowed to publish his work under the Communist regime. He theorizes that changes to the average nature of personalities and it's effect on populations can occur in very short time periods - hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. For example, he attributes the post-war demise of Europe to the loss of aggressive, risk-taking men by means of 19th century immigration and 20th century wars, which prevented their genes from being passed on in Europe. It is difficult to believe that the de-masculinization of European society is due purely to social restructuring.
A good essay and a brave one. However, recent work in the polygenic field tend to argue against large differences (1sd) in GWAS. Sure, there are those who make the pgsEDU argument, but they tend to drastically underestimate the extent to which terrible ideas in K-12 systems can spread across borders and jurisdictions rapidly, whilst good ideas in education (especially if time-honoured) are largely overlooked and studiously ignored.
It's worth looking at London as an exception, educationally, in terms of how the collision of a few good ideas at the same time managed to raise African British educational outcomes under exam conditions, basically eliminating racial differences in earnings for the 18 to 30 category.
Here's the far more likely hypothesis. Relatively small differences (0.1 to 0.2 sd) tend to compound over time and intergenerationally, which only an extremely fortuitous set of circumstances and rare wisdom can reverse. In a sense, this creates a well without a ladder- and despite all the folly of youthful optimism it seems to be an incredibly hard situation to reverse, requiring a rare mix of 'unconstrained' ambition paired with 'constrained' pragmatism. In nearly forty years of watching current affairs in the UK, with literally thousands of announcements of public policy, I've only ever seen it happen twice with the receipts to prove it.
Let's look at a historical analogy- the American Irish. They languished for over a century in the most pitiful and deprived condition. Achieving political power hardly helped the American Irish at all- for the simple reason that politics lacks the scalpel to change things for the better, other than through some fairly obvious 'equality under the law' reforms. What did help was the economics of timing, and a period of almost unlimited requirement for blue collar labour. That being said, without incredibly strict Catholic schooling systems, it's highly unlikely the American Irish would have ever been able to capitalise on the labour gains of a few generations and leverage itself into somewhat cohort-wide upward social mobility.
What is system-wide in the West in education is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Toxic compassion as a form of well-meaning help really doesn't help. We know. It's been tested. Other than a very modest public investment in classroom training for teachers, stricter schools seems to be one of the primary reasons why London schools have so quickly managed to raise educational outcomes.
And it's not as though the Tories didn't try checking the results to see whether they were real. There was a recent attempt to reverse an admittedly substantial degree of system-wide grade inflation. However, in this regard it wasn't the Black British daughters of single mothers raised in poor London Boroughs with endemic knife-crime who were found wanting, but rather the privileged scions of Eton, victims of coddled parenting and soft schooling who were found to be 'not top drawer'.
Thank you for such a good example of clear writing. Your progression of ideas made me think, and empowered the creative leap from simply arguing that great policy only occurs when both liberals and conservatives bring their best ideas to the table. If only it were that simple. Instead, it seems to be the case that rare societal circumstances where the unconstrained view has the mandate, but the constrained view is left to run the show; to test, measure and implement; is the only time such ambitious projects can work.
I can't see that happening in the West in the next decade- can you?
A blast from the past:
“The aim of eugenics is to represent each class or sect by its best specimens; that done, to leave them to work out their common civilization in their own way.” – Francis Galton, Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims, 1904
Language nit: on your paragraph introducing Steven Pinker, you say "Far from being a blank slate, human nature is an intricate tapestry woven from millions of years of evolutionary choices."
I "object" to the word "choices", as it suggests evolution is a directed action with a "mind" or something to choose among the available options. But it is of course a passive result of the organism having (or genes or alleles creating) a phenotype better adapted to the given environment within which it exists so that it can reproduce that feature or trait contributing to the survival of that organism's genome. I would be happier with the phrase "evolutionary selections", or other language supporting the passive nature of what is observed. :-)
Even people who do know better often inadvertently anthropomorphize this discussion/ description.
Just as some populations fare better or worse with a diet of milk, wheat, or rice, so too do some populations fare better or worse with different social structures. Liberal democracy might work for one group, Christian conservatism for another, and authoritarian stratocracy for a third.
I think you've circled all the way back around to post modernism. :-(
While I tend to be morally universalist on substantive issues (murder should be illegal everywhere) I tend to be more relativistic about forms of government. America is a federated republic while the United Kingdom is a unitary constitutional monarchy; and that is even with the demographic similarities between those two nations. Imagine what the differences in statecraft are between Africans and East Asians? I wonder how governance is different between races and what kind of state we can deduce from biology?
if the weather, soil, or waters on which a people evolve (even the food they have access to) shapes them, they it is logical they will be different, Unique. What kind of failure of imagination person has a problem with this? it makes life More interesting. "people have to be all the same" oh really? they are not, not even in the same family, because humans are hyper adaptive. Utopia, like perfection is a toxic idea. there are trade offs, and the only utopia will be on a dead planet, or a blank canvas...which changes once something is put on it. fantasy is always better that reality, because it is made to suit the individual imagining it. No 2 people will imagine the same utopia, because even if they are twins, they will be too different. and we now know epigenetics are a thing.....
I realize that this nit is entirely tangential to the argument made and supports deployed, but I must pick it nonetheless, as I am pedant and disagreeable boor. I should say that otherwise, I have no disagreements with the essay and endorse it. But I find it curious that the following section is left hanging and unqualified, as if our Author agrees with it implicitly.
"What Pinker calls the tragic view is essentially Thomas Sowell's constrained vision. It sees human nature as inherently flawed, marked by selfishness, and limited in its capacity for change. Social structures that ignore, or try to eradicate, these innate tendencies, inevitably fail. Rather than trying to create a perfect society, we should focus on creating systems that mitigate and sublimate our flaws while allowing for the greatest amount of freedom and prosperity."
> We should maximize freedom and prosperity
Why? It seems to me that attempting to do this is how we got here.