RE: Sebastian Ortiz It’s cool. In principle, Seb’s basically arguing that I am c

RE: Sebastian Ortiz

It’s cool. In principle, Seb’s basically arguing that I am correct in my analysis – but that he chooses a different preferred evolutionary strategy.

And I am perfectly OK with that. He demonstrates that Propertarian analysis will allow you to argue for your preferred model. That is what I am looking to accomplish: a universal language of political analysis.

That I prefer aristocratic egalitarianism rather than ghetto parasitism is a choice, not a truth. That he prefers the parasitic ethic, and that the parasitic ethic may indeed be a superior evolutionary strategy, is his choice. It may indeed be a wiser choice since the west, at least under Anglo dominance, has become suicidal.

So I don’t disagree with him. In fact, I applaud his use of Propertarian argument to advance his strategy.

I don’t claim that western aristocratic egalitarianism is the best for everyone. I claim only that it will evolve prosperity for a broad population faster than all possible alternatives, merely because transaction costs are lowest in a high trust homogenous polity. This in turn WILL allow for redistribution in the Scandinavian model, as long as immigration is prohibited, and lower class reproduction is limited.

All forms of parasitism by a minority on a host appear to be successful for the parasite. Mandarins included. Russians included. Most of history included. However, that does not mean that non-parasitic cooperation will not defeat them all. The west was a minority and despite smaller numbers, and poorer populations, farther from the source of the bronze, iron, and steel ages. But truth telling allows a large population – albeit at high cost – to innovate (adapt, reorganize) faster.

While Sebastian is correct, that selective reproduction and outcasting members who cannot memorize rituals, who then practice high trust internally, but low trust externally, can maintain asymmetric prosperity, and genetic advantage, in a host civilization as long as the host does not exterminate them.

The problem appears to be that hosts tend to exterminate them. And if not for the status-seeking of evangelical anglos, the germans might have been successful in eliminating both the jews and the gypsies.

So I am not sure it is a very safe strategy. There are a lot of jewish tombstones across central Asia in cities where there used to be jews, but no longer are. The Gypsies are here in the west to escape extermination. And without anglo imperialism and the post-war consensus, I kind of doubt the emphasis on human rights that has been western Christiandom’s claim to high status, and moral authority will survive under post-western ethics. And we are, as you can see, entering the post-western era.

So I will argue that Seb is correct, that parasitism is the best possible strategy for small populations who add high-IQ value to host polities – as long as they avoid politics and power.