Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • Three Books – A Hostile Elite

    THE FATAL EMBRACE – JEWS AND THE STATE THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DWELL ALONE A WARNING TO THE WEST https://www.amazon.com/Warning-West-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/0374513341/

  • Three Books – A Hostile Elite

    THE FATAL EMBRACE – JEWS AND THE STATE THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DWELL ALONE A WARNING TO THE WEST https://www.amazon.com/Warning-West-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/0374513341/

  • —-”Soon the world will be filled with mixed race people. Will racism and prejudice therefore end?”—-

    It won’t happen. (Really). A limited number of social orders are possible: i) genetically imperial (Han Chinese, Russian Empire), ii) large hierarchy of casts (india), iii) small homogenous and dynamic (europe, japan). iv) tyrannical hetero-tribal, v) failed peoples that cannot hold territory (diasporic unlanded people). Every experience with heterogeneity has failed. (Middle East, Brazil, and most obviously, India.) The most successful states are homogenous kin groups (China, Korea, Japan, the nordics, and until recently western europe.) The Chinese/Japanese/Korean civilization will very soon dominate the world economic and political sphere, and their racial exclusion will be copied by the rest of the world. The problem isn’t racism. The problem is that most unsuccessful races, subraces, tribes, and clans, consist of excessively large underclasses whose standards of living cannot be satisfied now that the advantages of western technology have been redistributed. Look at brazil. Look at the USA. The ‘whites’ are trying to separate. The jews remain separated. The diasporic chinese separate. It’s underclass peoples that commingle. The optimum social order is homogenous, for the simple reason that we redistribute to kin and resist redistribution to competitors. The optimum possible social and political order is kinship. (Do the research) Kin selection is an evolutionary advantage. (Do the research) The experiment with Democracy has largely failed. (Do the research)

  • —-”Soon the world will be filled with mixed race people. Will racism and prejudice therefore end?”—-

    It won’t happen. (Really). A limited number of social orders are possible: i) genetically imperial (Han Chinese, Russian Empire), ii) large hierarchy of casts (india), iii) small homogenous and dynamic (europe, japan). iv) tyrannical hetero-tribal, v) failed peoples that cannot hold territory (diasporic unlanded people). Every experience with heterogeneity has failed. (Middle East, Brazil, and most obviously, India.) The most successful states are homogenous kin groups (China, Korea, Japan, the nordics, and until recently western europe.) The Chinese/Japanese/Korean civilization will very soon dominate the world economic and political sphere, and their racial exclusion will be copied by the rest of the world. The problem isn’t racism. The problem is that most unsuccessful races, subraces, tribes, and clans, consist of excessively large underclasses whose standards of living cannot be satisfied now that the advantages of western technology have been redistributed. Look at brazil. Look at the USA. The ‘whites’ are trying to separate. The jews remain separated. The diasporic chinese separate. It’s underclass peoples that commingle. The optimum social order is homogenous, for the simple reason that we redistribute to kin and resist redistribution to competitors. The optimum possible social and political order is kinship. (Do the research) Kin selection is an evolutionary advantage. (Do the research) The experiment with Democracy has largely failed. (Do the research)

  • —“Can a country lose its cultural heritage if the country borrows from other cultures, which become a part of their culture as well?”—

    We have all borrowed from one another for all of history. And those isolated areas that could not borrow from others not only didn’t improve, but in many cases (New Zealand, Australia) regressed. (I am still studying the empires of west Africa and it’s possibly been a problem there also.) However, borrowing isn’t always voluntary, and borrowing isn’t always good. Islam has been a destructive force everywhere it’s been adopted – although to different degrees, judaism (membership), christianity (resistance), islam (rule) were spread by coercion rather than choice. So we can import good things (metallurgy, engineering, farming practices), or we can import bad things (lower trust, political competition, underclasses) or we can import really bad things (means of deception, means of propagandizing, means of coercion, means of rule).

  • —“Can a country lose its cultural heritage if the country borrows from other cultures, which become a part of their culture as well?”—

    We have all borrowed from one another for all of history. And those isolated areas that could not borrow from others not only didn’t improve, but in many cases (New Zealand, Australia) regressed. (I am still studying the empires of west Africa and it’s possibly been a problem there also.) However, borrowing isn’t always voluntary, and borrowing isn’t always good. Islam has been a destructive force everywhere it’s been adopted – although to different degrees, judaism (membership), christianity (resistance), islam (rule) were spread by coercion rather than choice. So we can import good things (metallurgy, engineering, farming practices), or we can import bad things (lower trust, political competition, underclasses) or we can import really bad things (means of deception, means of propagandizing, means of coercion, means of rule).

  • The Collapse Model of History

    As far as I know the ‘Collapse’ model is correct: civilizations expand – like all human opportunities – until the underclasses, now enabled, conquer them. This is true for 3500 bc, 1200bc, 400ad, and 1900ad.

  • The Collapse Model of History

    As far as I know the ‘Collapse’ model is correct: civilizations expand – like all human opportunities – until the underclasses, now enabled, conquer them. This is true for 3500 bc, 1200bc, 400ad, and 1900ad.

  • Chinese Insularism Is the Optimum Strategy

    My understanding of history is that the Chinese insularism, is absolutely the optimum strategy. The principle problem wth the chinese was that they failed to solve the problem of competing interests, and tort law to resolve them, which prevented them from solving the problems of (formal) reason, and science. If the romans had built the walls, (which they started) they would have given us ‘china’ in the same way that the mountains gave india, and the desert gave africa, and the oceans gave australia and the americas, the central problem has been the tribalism of the people of the desert and steppe: the middle east.

  • Chinese Insularism Is the Optimum Strategy

    My understanding of history is that the Chinese insularism, is absolutely the optimum strategy. The principle problem wth the chinese was that they failed to solve the problem of competing interests, and tort law to resolve them, which prevented them from solving the problems of (formal) reason, and science. If the romans had built the walls, (which they started) they would have given us ‘china’ in the same way that the mountains gave india, and the desert gave africa, and the oceans gave australia and the americas, the central problem has been the tribalism of the people of the desert and steppe: the middle east.