—“autosomal DNA does not favor intruders, while cultural artifacts do”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 11:47:00 UTC
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
ERROR OF ANGLO UNIVERSALISM – CONVERSATION WITH NICHOLAS CARDACI ON EVOLUTIONARY
https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/THE ERROR OF ANGLO UNIVERSALISM – CONVERSATION WITH NICHOLAS CARDACI ON EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES
NICK
Were you aware of this series of experiments that were carried out on evolutionary strategies competing with one another? I found them very useful:
https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/
CURT
Yes. Axelrod and followers have been working on this model for many years. I include him in my reading list.
This particular set of studies is interesting in that it addresses the value of ethnocentrism.
While economic utility CAN be expressed as reproduction, it is not always the case as Sweden shows today.
But I should probably comment on the study so that I draw the connection with propertarianism.
NICK
Were you surprised that the mechanism of ethnocentric ascension was straight up robbery of humanitarians, rather than limitation of free riding?
I think there’s definitely both going on, but the weakness of the mediation (?) hypothesis surprised me.
CURT
No, it’s obvious. One of the values of modeling that Axelrod (and other life-models) brought to the debate (with the aid of computer science) was equilibrial modeling rather than linear projection.
It’s great stuff. I think I read him first … I dunno. It seems like the 80’s or maybe early 90’s. My wife and I were travelling in the UK at the time and I read it in the wee hours of the morning.
It was one of the most influential pieces that I read.
Actually, maybe i’ll write a post about the relationship between axelrod in cooperation and mandelbrot in stock markets, and taleb in risk, and equilibrium in prices. These behaviors are all the same: before we had data and computers we could not conduct these measurements and we could not see them.
This means that unless one can describe an idea as a supply and demand curve, that one is engaging in idealism.
NICK
I’ve been pondering this topic recently, mulling over the conflict between the moral universalism and ethnocentrism.
One thing that’s readily obvious to me, especially being around alot of southern europeans, is that this ethnocentrism though isn’t always great. As it seems to me that it’s always accompanied with high family nepotism. Italy, is extremely regionalist and nepotistic within the family, and seriously limits how big their commons can be I think. The country is way too big as it is, with that level of heterogeneity.
Some of it seems to be the greater levels of inbreeding that’s gone on historically.
The bolded text in this post by hbd chick pretty much nails the kinship/family nepotism that goes on down there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Reaction/comments/3gckby/the_reality_of_deep_southern_euro_inbreeding_is/
Even in the anglo countries, I still see it going on, with italians from the same region letting eachother off parking fines
It makes them more impervious to outside infiltration, but they can never reach the same commons as their northern neighbors.
CURT
Nepotism (family corporialism) is not the same as corruption or deceit. if one biases opportunities toward the family in maters not in the commons then that is not an imposition of costs upon others.
If one exercises corruption in the production of commons, then that is another thing altogether.
So you’d distinguish those then?
CURT
Yes. Favoring market opportunity is different from imposing costs upon the commons.
Even the innocent nepotism, seems to be harmful to an extent. Like you mentioned on the Shoah, it limits a society’s ability to put the best person in the job.
There was a good article recently outlining how in Romance Europe, family owned corporations are far more dominant than in the Anglo markets, where there’s ‘market-based management’, meritocracy essentially.
So just as anglo model works under great opportunity (and as the model shows) the family model (and aristocracy which is also a family model) defeats the anglo over time.
that’s what Axelrod’s model shows.
NICK
This is true. As they cooperate with people defecting against them. Yes. It seems to me to be both a gift and a curse. That’s cliched, but its the only way I can think do describe attitudes in southern europe.
CURT
It’s just that no principle of measurement is infinitely extensible. A rule acts as a means of measurement (decidability). There are not infinitely true rules. There are limits to every rule. (Which is a very complex bit of philosophy, but the reason why apriorism can’t be true.)
The tactics you use in one circumstance and those in another are different. It is probably short term better to use universal ethics until your competitors catch up, and then return to familial ethics in order to prevent defectors from becoming parasites.
(this is a very good discussion we should probably post for others to follow)
NICK
Yes. That’s what it seems to me. Southern europeans are capped in what they can do, but what they have is far more robust and secure than what the anglos and co have achieved.
Should we post it on the Subreddit?
CURT
Yes. It’s a pretty good conversation that we can probably use to educate others. We are touching on a set of very big ideas here that are not obvious: the limits to any evolutaionary strategy, the advantage of familialism over universalism in the long term, the conceptual problem of training people to models and demand curves instead of ideal types and linear progressions.
What we are saying is that we must increase the complexity of the basis of moral argument.
NICK
Yes, we cant simply pretend to have moral arguments among ourselves (as europeans) in isolation any longer. It’s eating away at us.
I went through my finance textbook and found the study about family ownership I mentioned.
Faccio & Lang, “The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations” (1997)
A bit older than I thought
Also, there’s a study indicating their outperformance over more anglo style firms, strangely enough.
Anderson & Reeb, “Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance from the S&P500” (2003)
Going to head off.
CURT
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 07:02:00 UTC
-
Cardaci sent this update on Axelrod’s work on the competitive value of ethnocent
https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/Nicholas Cardaci sent this update on Axelrod’s work on the competitive value of ethnocentrism, and how entho-centrism always wins. I had assumed this was fairly obvious, but while axelrod also focuses on cooperation, I want to convert this into propertarian language and therefore make it more compatible with ethics and political economy. So over the next few months I’ll try to write a few posts that make use of this argument.
(Thanks Nick)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 04:46:00 UTC
-
CHOKED WITH NEWS (DEPENDENCE) AND STARVED OF HISTORY(SOVEREIGNTY) –“We are chok
CHOKED WITH NEWS (DEPENDENCE) AND STARVED OF HISTORY(SOVEREIGNTY)
–“We are choked with news, and starved of history. We know a thousand items about the day or yesterday, we learn the events and troubles and heartbreaks of a hundred peoples, the policies and pretensions of a dozen capitals, the victories and defeats of causes, armies, athletic teams. But how, without history, can we understand these events, discriminate their significance, sift out the large from the small, see the basic currents underlying surface movements and changes, and foresee the result sufficiently to guard against fatal error or the souring of unreasonable hopes?
May I give you a few examples of how history illuminates the present? After the wars of Caesar and Pompey in the last century before Christ, Rome emerged the only strong power in the white man’s world. Through that unchallenged supremacy she was able to give two centuries of peace to her vast realm, a Roman Empire stretching from Scotland to the Euphrates, from Gibraltar to the Caucasus. This was the famous Pax Romana; or Roman Peace – the greatest achievement in the history of statesmanship. Anyone knowing the history of Rome could have foreseen – some of us definitely predicted – that international affairs after this war would be more unstable, less pacific, than after the First World War, for the obvious reason that from this war two rival powers were emerging – the English-speaking powers supreme on the seas, and the power of Russia supreme on the European continent; two powers so dangerously balanced, and in such irritating contact on a dozen frontiers, that peace would be more difficult to organize than ever before. Even the statesmanship of an Augustus would hesitate to promise a Shangri-La of international accord in this jungle of conflicting interests and distrustful power.
Or consider the origin of the great peoples and civilizations of history; how nearly every one of them began with the slow mixture of varied racial stocks entering from any direction into some conquered or inviting region, mixing their blood in marriage or otherwise, gradually producing a homogeneous people, and thereby creating, so to speak, the biological basis of a new civilization. So the Egyptians were formed of Ethiopians, Lybians, Arabs, Syrians, Mesopotamians; so the ancient Hebrews were the composite of their own various stocks, and of Canaanites, Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Hittites, and a dozen other peoples that swirled around the Euphrates, the Jordan, and the Orontes. It is not clear, in the perspective, that we Americans are in the stage of racial mixture, that we are not caught in the downward flow of Europe’s civilization, and that – Spengler to the contrary notwithstanding – our future lies before us? But that is an excellent place for a future to be.
Or consider the revolutions that have taken place in history, in the routes of trade, and see what a light they shed upon out time. Most civilizations and cities rise along trade routes. First along rivers, for these are the natural , easiest routes of trade; so great cultures rose along the Nile, the Tigris, the Ganges, the Yellow River, the Tiber, Rhone, Loire, Seine, Thames, Elbe, Oder, Vistula, Dnieper, Danube, Volga, Don. Then, as hearts grew bolder and ships grew large, men sailed into the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and squatted noisily along their shores, as Plato said, “like frogs croaking on the edge of a pond.” What made Greece was the perception of the early Greeks, or Achaeans, that if they could conquer Troy they would control the Dardanelles or Hellespont, and be able to send their merchant vessels without toll or hindrance through the Aegean into the Black Sea, and down the rivers of the Caucasus into Central Asia; in this way they would possess a trade route to Asia far cheaper and safer than the land route of the caravans that bound Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia over weary routes of mountain and desert infested with brigands. That dream of commercial power, and not Helen’s fair face, “launched a thousand ships” on Ilium, and brought Hector and Priam to Achille’s feet. Persia, part of the land route, challenged the victorious Greeks; and note how both Darius in 490, and Xerxes in 480 B.C., in their wars against Greece, moved first to take possession of the Dardanelles – just as a British fleet hovers there now, clinging to strategic Greece, and fearful that the Straits may suddenly be pounced upon by Russian armies lying a few leagues inland in Bulgaria. When Greece defeated Persia at Marathon and Salamis, she was left in control of the eastern Mediterranean and its trade; she blossomed like a flower, while the river cultures, locked to the land, decayed; and for two thousand years the Mediterranean was the home of the white man’s highest civilization.
Why did the Mediterranean cease, with Michelangelo, about 1560, to dominate the commerce and politics of the world? Because Columbus had stumbled upon America, and had unwittingly opened new routes of trade, and new sources of wealth. Soon the Atlantic nations rose to power – Spain, Portugal, France, England, Holland; each prospered on the exploitation of colonies in America and Asia overseas; each financed in this way its magnificent Renaissance; while Italy, mistress of civilization for fifteen centuries, almost disappeared from history.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-09 03:06:00 UTC
-
AQUILA (EAGLE) AND S.P.Q.R. —“Pliny the Elder suggests the republican army bor
AQUILA (EAGLE) AND S.P.Q.R.
—“Pliny the Elder suggests the republican army bore five different animal standards, the eagle, the wolf, the minotaur, the horse and the boar. Marius later made the eagle (aquila) the supreme symbol because of its association with the god Jupiter. The other symbols were subsequently either relegated to a lesser role, or abolished altogether.”—
– Charlemagne used an iron crown then the eagle as a continuation.
– The Holy Roman Empire continued to use the double eagle.
– Genoa starts, the Templars adopt, and England and Europa take on the StGeorge’s Cross
– From that we get the Union Jack, the American Flag and the European Union Flag.
– Before all that we go to the spartan shield.
But I am far more interested in heraldry, since that represents families not empires.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 09:50:00 UTC
-
WHY RULE? Europe ended at the Sahara. Now Africa ends at the Alps. Soon it will
WHY RULE?
Europe ended at the Sahara. Now Africa ends at the Alps. Soon it will end at the North sea.
It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that the Arab Conquest of north Africa was as great a tragedy as the Arab Conquest of byzantium, and the Arab conquest of Persia.
It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that our efforts at colonization were mixed – where we ruled it added net value, where we exploited it was a criminal theft.
I reject colonialism, but I do not reject rule. The construction of commons and social order are the providence of peoples. The construction of moral order is merely a scientific and absolute truth. Rule = Law. Governance = Contract. Contract=Commons. Commons=Group Strategy. Group Strategy=Group Persistence. Group Persistence=Universal Goal.
Conquest doesn’t stop any more than evolution. Someone will conquer. We must always choose the least bad choice. The least bad means of conquest is Rule. Rule of law is a moral universal. There is no exception to this rule. Without it we do not cooperate we prey upon one another.
Save Christendom. We cleaned Europe of the Moors. Time to do it again.
Export jurists. Move justice to people not people to justice.
Move capital to people, not people to capital.
We are the only truth tellers.
Spread the truth.
Prosperity will follow.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 09:22:00 UTC
-
RUSSIA CAN LIMIT, IT CANNOT LEAD. Circumpolar people
RUSSIA CAN LIMIT, IT CANNOT LEAD.
Circumpolar people.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 00:24:00 UTC
-
The 3rd World has Weaponized Reproduction under consumer capitalism, and they’re
The 3rd World has Weaponized Reproduction under consumer capitalism, and they’re winning the war of dysgenic conquest. #NRx #tlot #tcot
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 13:28:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629282974656278528
-
Aristocracy (Advocacy), Not Racism (Criticism)
[R]ace debate is not helpful to anyone. Aristocracy is. Culling your herd (tribe) will produce a universal aristocracy regardless of race. We, the Chinese and the European Jews have been the best at culling our herds. The other civilizations simply haven’t been successful at culling their tribes. I don’t see differences in races of homo-sapiens other than reproductive value, and distribution of talents. And the distribution of talents is a function of thefailure to suppress the lower classes from reproducing.
That’s it. I don’t care about the color of your skin so much as I care about the distribution of talents in your family. You are either successful at improving your family or you are not. If you are not then your aristocracy is a failure. The alternative is just to breed as many of the worst as possible and use the export of your bad genes as a weapon. Which is what the muslim world is doing. -
Aristocracy (Advocacy), Not Racism (Criticism)
[R]ace debate is not helpful to anyone. Aristocracy is. Culling your herd (tribe) will produce a universal aristocracy regardless of race. We, the Chinese and the European Jews have been the best at culling our herds. The other civilizations simply haven’t been successful at culling their tribes. I don’t see differences in races of homo-sapiens other than reproductive value, and distribution of talents. And the distribution of talents is a function of thefailure to suppress the lower classes from reproducing.
That’s it. I don’t care about the color of your skin so much as I care about the distribution of talents in your family. You are either successful at improving your family or you are not. If you are not then your aristocracy is a failure. The alternative is just to breed as many of the worst as possible and use the export of your bad genes as a weapon. Which is what the muslim world is doing.