Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

Some of you might have seen my video on Moral Specialization and the Reproductive Division of Cognitive Labor, that addresses how the genders and classes express their reproductive strategies as differences in moral bias (meaning, demand). … and at the other end of the spectrum, on the civilizational scale, please see my video on the Circumpolar civilization and division of labor. So I’ll suggest you view those two at some point, if not first, before continuing with this video. This video is a continuation of that theme: the division of cognitive, productive, and reproductive, labor from the very smallest to the very largest scale. And we’re going to explore the middle ground between those two videos with polities. I want to paint a very different picture of mankind’s future potential means of organizing that is the antithesis of the abrahamic authoritarian version-one religions, and abrahamic version two pseudoscientific sophisms of marxism-feminism-postmodernism and universalist equalitarian and dysgenic vision of the herd. Its a vision more inline with the cultural and civilizational diversity (or markets) of the past. One where we return to the speciation that we engaged in prior to agrarianism. And it’s a vision that abandons many of the presumptions during the agrarian period we know as the copper, bronze, and steel ages. Unfortunately, we have very little to refer to outside of that era since we have not had the luxury of self determination that we have in this age of modernity. But in short, we have the luxury of returning to group specialization and speciation for those who desire it, and group generalization and equality for those who desire it. But for the moment let’s review the reasoning that will lead us here. – time: the only resource we have. we cooperate to save time. The more we cooperate the more time we save (or rather perhaps ‘make’) – we not wealthier than cave men we have just made everything cheaper in the time required to obtain it. – the male reproductive strategy is seize opportunities ….. male defense is the male pack – and the female reproductive strategy is selective utility… – female defense is the female herd (MORE HERE ON Gender strategies) – while these gender biases are universal the this does not mean we all do not differ in our positions on that distribution with some males demonstrating the female strategy and some females demonstrating the male strategy. – there are only so many degrees of significant difference between human groups and at present all of them seem to be determined by degree of neoteny or its reversal, and distribution of male and female traits between the genders (dimorphism). In other words, the principle differences between the Macro Races, Major Races, and Races appears to be little more than: (a) the success at neotenic evolution in winter farming and close cohabitation, or the success at developmental depth and intensity in the face of warmer climates and greater disease resistance, and hardier children. (b) The distribution of female and male biases in cognition between the genders, as well as male and female morphology. (c) the success at shrinking the underclass in harsh winters or under agrarian manorialism. (d) the number of diverse competitors (tribes) that increase the demand for aggression and clannishness vs the homogeneity and demand for cohabitability and increase the demand for limiting clanishnes. (e) the number of outliers produced at the top and bottom of the range (width of cognitive distribution) ie: ashkenazi. – so we have different moral biases, or rather stated, different moral demands of one another. As suits our needs. – These moral difference s can be measured – see haidt’s as property rights and therefore political preferences express these gender differences – leftists are cognitive specialists in consumption, and rightists are cognitive generalists but give more weight to capital accumulation. Meaning that leftists specialize in the female herd strategy. Meaning that conservatives specialize in the male pack strategy. – These demands can only be met through compromise we call exchanges. (really) – Cooperation is voluntary, so we choose the compromise position. – At some point the compromise position for one group of biases is counter to genetic, moral, and cognitive interest. – Worse, the female strategy is, as expected, producing cognitive declines through rapid increase in the underclasses thereby reversing millennia of economic selection that made possible our prosperity. – As always the globalists (female strategy) pursue monopoly and equality and dysgenia, which always and everywhere results in underclass expansion, demand for authority, the authoritarian personality of the left. – As always, the localists (male strategy) favor markets in everything where we can compete and continuously improve as we did in the anciet world before the abrahamic dark ages, and have in the modern world as we cast off the abrahamic dark ages. But we see the feminin globalists seeking equalitarian monopoly and dysgenic reproduction again in the yet another abrahamic dark age. This time by marxism-feminism-postmodernism (meaning pseudoscience and sophism) rather than by abrahamic supernatural authoritarianism in the ancient world. – male aggression – men rally to prey on competitors and steal their territory and females vs females compete for status, access to resources, and access to insurance. Males compete by frequent violence that ends without too much harm – just positioning in the pack. women compete by infrequent conflict but when in conflict engage in reputation destruction, don’t forgive, and seek to outcast and make vulnerable other females. They then undermine males by the same method. They also heap undue praise. so women war by gossip, ridicule shamming, rallying, and reputation destruction. Most of which is invisible. – some groups specialize in masculine packs and hierarchies and meritocracy, some in herds or equality. Some in productivity because they have high trust, some in parasitism and predation because they have low trust. – all groups develop competitive excellences in their outliers and these excellences are asian mathematical and a narrow distribution, ashkenazi verbal and a wide distribution, and white balance in an in-between distribution. Some groups develop excellences in reproduction and aggression (africans and arabs), some in achievements (whites and east asians). Some in an almost unimaginably peaceful stability (indians). – the principle problem for competitive (evolutionary) excellences is (a) burden of the underclass, (b) dilution by invasion, migration, immigration. – as we have become wealthier each of us attempts to assert our reproductive strategy as the common good. This is why the enlightenment consisted largely of revolts against anglo-scandianvian empiricism of uniquely high trust packs of people, and the french, german, jewish, and russian – then chinese and indian and south american revolts against empiricism – at present we are in a civilizational conflict between the herd of feminine and equalitarians that constitute the less desirable upper talking classes, and the underclasses, and the packs consisting of the more desirable working and middle classes and their military classes. And we seem to think that, despite the evidence that we continue on our trajectories, that there is a compromise to be had – at one’s expense or another’s. But while agrarianism bound us together and forced the compromise we call monogamy, polity, religion, and civilization in a division of labor, these constraints no longer bind us. Women are able to, and ever more frequently pursuing single motherhood, and spend 70% of the money in the economy. Men no longer need marriage to survive, or for status. And their income needs are more in saving for old age than in adult consumption. Our productivity is high enough that with changes to our financial system that end exploitation of the middle classes we can pursue strategies that were never possible before. And with this freedom from constraint, some groups want to preserve family as the central unit of production, and policy of the polity, and some do not, and want the individual to function as the central unit of production, and central unit of policy in the polity. We cannot ask one another to abandon our genetic interests in modernity unless we are willing to conquer one another, or engage in costly civil wars. So the problem we face is that we have constructed governments in the enlightenment era – post napoleonic france in particular, to take advantage of the ability to finance military defense at scale. Butt his condition no longer exists. a small polity with a few nuclear weapons and a swiss militia with small professional army is not worth the risk of warring with. There is every reason to deconstruct governments so that we produce the polities we each want, so that each of us can group together to pursue our different group evolutionary strategies without preying upon the other’s group strategy. And every reason to assist in the development of excellences in each group, and to let a thousand nations with different excellences bloom. The only reason not to is because one wants to prey upon others the way at least three notorious groups currently prey upon other civilizations through some sort of parasitism or another. So my view is that we must choose between continuing cognitive universal decline, or to revolt separate and re-speciate, such that those that choose the feminine strategy decline, and those of us that choose the masculine strategy continue to drag humanity kicking and screaming into the future. Revolt, separate, prosper, speciate. No more class, race wars of domination. The alternative is to Revolt, Separate, Prosper, and Speciate and let evolutionary success determine who made the optimum choice: dysgenic left, or eugenic right.

Some of you might have seen my video on Moral Specialization and the Reproductive Division of Cognitive Labor, that addresses how the genders and classes express their reproductive strategies as differences in moral bias (meaning, demand). … and at the other end of the spectrum, on the civilizational scale, please see my video on the Circumpolar civilization and division of labor. So I’ll suggest you view those two at some point, if not first, before continuing with this video. This video is a continuation of that theme: the division of cognitive, productive, and reproductive, labor from the very smallest to the very largest scale. And we’re going to explore the middle ground between those two videos with polities. I want to paint a very different picture of mankind’s future potential means of organizing that is the antithesis of the abrahamic authoritarian version-one religions, and abrahamic version two pseudoscientific sophisms of marxism-feminism-postmodernism and universalist equalitarian and dysgenic vision of the herd. Its a vision more inline with the cultural and civilizational diversity (or markets) of the past. One where we return to the speciation that we engaged in prior to agrarianism. And it’s a vision that abandons many of the presumptions during the agrarian period we know as the copper, bronze, and steel ages. Unfortunately, we have very little to refer to outside of that era since we have not had the luxury of self determination that we have in this age of modernity. But in short, we have the luxury of returning to group specialization and speciation for those who desire it, and group generalization and equality for those who desire it. But for the moment let’s review the reasoning that will lead us here. – time: the only resource we have. we cooperate to save time. The more we cooperate the more time we save (or rather perhaps ‘make’) – we not wealthier than cave men we have just made everything cheaper in the time required to obtain it. – the male reproductive strategy is seize opportunities ….. male defense is the male pack – and the female reproductive strategy is selective utility… – female defense is the female herd (MORE HERE ON Gender strategies) – while these gender biases are universal the this does not mean we all do not differ in our positions on that distribution with some males demonstrating the female strategy and some females demonstrating the male strategy. – there are only so many degrees of significant difference between human groups and at present all of them seem to be determined by degree of neoteny or its reversal, and distribution of male and female traits between the genders (dimorphism). In other words, the principle differences between the Macro Races, Major Races, and Races appears to be little more than: (a) the success at neotenic evolution in winter farming and close cohabitation, or the success at developmental depth and intensity in the face of warmer climates and greater disease resistance, and hardier children. (b) The distribution of female and male biases in cognition between the genders, as well as male and female morphology. (c) the success at shrinking the underclass in harsh winters or under agrarian manorialism. (d) the number of diverse competitors (tribes) that increase the demand for aggression and clannishness vs the homogeneity and demand for cohabitability and increase the demand for limiting clanishnes. (e) the number of outliers produced at the top and bottom of the range (width of cognitive distribution) ie: ashkenazi. – so we have different moral biases, or rather stated, different moral demands of one another. As suits our needs. – These moral difference s can be measured – see haidt’s as property rights and therefore political preferences express these gender differences – leftists are cognitive specialists in consumption, and rightists are cognitive generalists but give more weight to capital accumulation. Meaning that leftists specialize in the female herd strategy. Meaning that conservatives specialize in the male pack strategy. – These demands can only be met through compromise we call exchanges. (really) – Cooperation is voluntary, so we choose the compromise position. – At some point the compromise position for one group of biases is counter to genetic, moral, and cognitive interest. – Worse, the female strategy is, as expected, producing cognitive declines through rapid increase in the underclasses thereby reversing millennia of economic selection that made possible our prosperity. – As always the globalists (female strategy) pursue monopoly and equality and dysgenia, which always and everywhere results in underclass expansion, demand for authority, the authoritarian personality of the left. – As always, the localists (male strategy) favor markets in everything where we can compete and continuously improve as we did in the anciet world before the abrahamic dark ages, and have in the modern world as we cast off the abrahamic dark ages. But we see the feminin globalists seeking equalitarian monopoly and dysgenic reproduction again in the yet another abrahamic dark age. This time by marxism-feminism-postmodernism (meaning pseudoscience and sophism) rather than by abrahamic supernatural authoritarianism in the ancient world. – male aggression – men rally to prey on competitors and steal their territory and females vs females compete for status, access to resources, and access to insurance. Males compete by frequent violence that ends without too much harm – just positioning in the pack. women compete by infrequent conflict but when in conflict engage in reputation destruction, don’t forgive, and seek to outcast and make vulnerable other females. They then undermine males by the same method. They also heap undue praise. so women war by gossip, ridicule shamming, rallying, and reputation destruction. Most of which is invisible. – some groups specialize in masculine packs and hierarchies and meritocracy, some in herds or equality. Some in productivity because they have high trust, some in parasitism and predation because they have low trust. – all groups develop competitive excellences in their outliers and these excellences are asian mathematical and a narrow distribution, ashkenazi verbal and a wide distribution, and white balance in an in-between distribution. Some groups develop excellences in reproduction and aggression (africans and arabs), some in achievements (whites and east asians). Some in an almost unimaginably peaceful stability (indians). – the principle problem for competitive (evolutionary) excellences is (a) burden of the underclass, (b) dilution by invasion, migration, immigration. – as we have become wealthier each of us attempts to assert our reproductive strategy as the common good. This is why the enlightenment consisted largely of revolts against anglo-scandianvian empiricism of uniquely high trust packs of people, and the french, german, jewish, and russian – then chinese and indian and south american revolts against empiricism – at present we are in a civilizational conflict between the herd of feminine and equalitarians that constitute the less desirable upper talking classes, and the underclasses, and the packs consisting of the more desirable working and middle classes and their military classes. And we seem to think that, despite the evidence that we continue on our trajectories, that there is a compromise to be had – at one’s expense or another’s. But while agrarianism bound us together and forced the compromise we call monogamy, polity, religion, and civilization in a division of labor, these constraints no longer bind us. Women are able to, and ever more frequently pursuing single motherhood, and spend 70% of the money in the economy. Men no longer need marriage to survive, or for status. And their income needs are more in saving for old age than in adult consumption. Our productivity is high enough that with changes to our financial system that end exploitation of the middle classes we can pursue strategies that were never possible before. And with this freedom from constraint, some groups want to preserve family as the central unit of production, and policy of the polity, and some do not, and want the individual to function as the central unit of production, and central unit of policy in the polity. We cannot ask one another to abandon our genetic interests in modernity unless we are willing to conquer one another, or engage in costly civil wars. So the problem we face is that we have constructed governments in the enlightenment era – post napoleonic france in particular, to take advantage of the ability to finance military defense at scale. Butt his condition no longer exists. a small polity with a few nuclear weapons and a swiss militia with small professional army is not worth the risk of warring with. There is every reason to deconstruct governments so that we produce the polities we each want, so that each of us can group together to pursue our different group evolutionary strategies without preying upon the other’s group strategy. And every reason to assist in the development of excellences in each group, and to let a thousand nations with different excellences bloom. The only reason not to is because one wants to prey upon others the way at least three notorious groups currently prey upon other civilizations through some sort of parasitism or another. So my view is that we must choose between continuing cognitive universal decline, or to revolt separate and re-speciate, such that those that choose the feminine strategy decline, and those of us that choose the masculine strategy continue to drag humanity kicking and screaming into the future. Revolt, separate, prosper, speciate. No more class, race wars of domination. The alternative is to Revolt, Separate, Prosper, and Speciate and let evolutionary success determine who made the optimum choice: dysgenic left, or eugenic right.