You can’t. You can simply avoid the problem. All that happens in mixed race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of the civilization. When you increase the size of the polity you get classes. Sorry. That’s how it is for the simple reason that some people are more genetically desirable in every way than other peoples, and that’s what social class means: reproductive, associative, cooperative, economically cooperative, politically cooperative, militarily cooperative desirability. Each of us has a social market value and that social market value is what we call our class. We have higher sexual and social market value within group than across group except at the extremes. The desirability of different subraces is well documented, and is determined by ratio-proportionality and degree of neoteny. The only way to avoid the problem is to** segregate within states, or separate into separate states.** The science behind this reality is quite simple: 1 – Races and Subraces have different sized underclasses and **different distributions** around the mean in the personality traits that are genetically determined and largely immutable: a) intelligence, b) industriousness, and in rates of sexual development and depths of sexual development, and the retention of those features that illustrate retention of childhood features. (we have been domesticated just like other animals. We are no different. Some groups are more domesticated (lower testosterone, lower impulsivity, lower and slower sexual development, and therefore greater agency (self discipline of our emotions and impulses). 2 – Because of these differences **we need to produce VERY different commons** (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education and training in the intuitionistic [what we call religion], in physical training, and in skills training, and in occupational training.) The median (average) (66% majority) determines the demand for formal and informal institutions (listed below). 3 – **Proximity Creates Animosity **because of the different status signals in and across groups, and the different rates of development both genetically, informatively, and culturally. Groups that are happy with their condition separately become hostile in proximity, and more hostile in cohabitation, and more hostile in political competition. This is true everywhere on earth. 4 – Because of these differences we need **very different political orders** – from the very liberal northern European high trust, to the very disciplined as we see in religious regions, to the nearly military needed in others. I could go on but the end is the end: Trying to eliminate races always and everywhere produces a **race to the bottom**. Creating many small nation states that are little more than corporations that serve the needs of their kin group and that kin group’s distribution will produce a** race to the top**. There is a very good reason why Europe evolved faster than the rest of the world combined in both the ancient and modern worlds: small homogeneous states. **Monopolies are always bad**. They are even worse in federations and empires. China is the interesting exception since the Han slowly conquer and integrate near neighbors, and are currently in the process of doing so to the remaining border nations. The Han are the largest ethnic group in the world. And they conquer and ‘make disappear’ every group possible. The Indians, who were (at least in what is today’s Pakistan) one of the oldest civilizations, were not able to progress – we don’t understand why yet but probably demographics. The Chinese stagnated despite good demographics. The Arabs destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world (North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Persian, Byzantine, (and as a consequence Roman by raids and slave taking) and ended by 1200, with the remains of their empire was only preserved by the new population of Turks who were forced out of china’s territories – but even the Turks declined rather quickly, and the middle east is still in the 7th century in most ways. South Americans are falling behind again. East Africa was on the cusp of development when the Europeans arrived and pitted the emerging civilizations against each other. **Races** are a good thing. **Subraces** are a good thing. **Tribes** are a good thing. **Clans** are a good thing. **Families** are a good thing. You can choose between kingroup-states, or Corporate States. You can choose between small very different states, or large homogeneous states. You can choose between collapse under political monopoly, or rapid progress under political diversity. Because in the spectrum from dictatorship to anglo rule of law you must possess an increasingly optimum demographic as you move from dictatorship to liberty. **The only value of scale is military conquest**. The value of homogeneity is psychological, not real. The effect of diversity in a polity that has access to political power is always the same: collapse. The best countries to live in have **small homogeneous populations** with very **small underclasses**, high median **intelligence**, and well developed **neoteny**, without hostile **competitors** on their borders.
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
“Q: What if there was only one ethnicity in existence?”— THE CORRECT ANSWER Wh
—“Q: What if there was only one ethnicity in existence?”—
THE CORRECT ANSWER
When there is one ethnicity we form Castes and Classes and Clans, and Cults, and Political polities, and… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288619525068278&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 13:30:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035157760420274178
-
My answer to What if there was only one ethnicity in existence?
My answer to What if there was only one ethnicity in existence? https://www.quora.com/What-if-there-was-only-one-ethnicity-in-existence/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=3ba38383
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 13:00:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035150172865683459
-
“Q: What if there was only one ethnicity in existence?”— THE CORRECT ANSWER Wh
—“Q: What if there was only one ethnicity in existence?”—
THE CORRECT ANSWER
When there is one ethnicity we form Castes and Classes and Clans, and Cults, and Political polities, and orders, and war bands.
As long as women practice signal competition with other women, and hypergamy (an evolutionary necessity) men will practice signaling and organizing together to create competitive advantage. As long as we are intellectually, physically, and intuitionistically different (we are), and as long as groups differ in distributions of intellectual, physical, and intuitionistic abilities, we will compete like all other species and practice reproductive, social, economic and political selection (competition). If we stop we will die off.
Race is just the easiest first means of discrimination in pursuit of higher sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value. After that is class. After class is physical attractiveness and behavior and intelligence.
We are riders on our genes. We either assist those genes, or we will face extinction by those who do.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 09:30:00 UTC
-
My answer to How did the concept of race begin?
My answer to How did the concept of race begin? https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-concept-of-race-begin/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=10899209
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 20:52:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034906697704333312
-
“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”— I think this is well understood so I d
—“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”—
I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However:
HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER
The categorization of people into… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288374755092755&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 19:38:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034888144318091264
-
—“How did the concept of race begin?”–
I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that cuases conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the biggers upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers
-
—“How did the concept of race begin?”–
I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that cuases conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the biggers upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers
-
“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”— I think this is well understood so I d
—“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”—
I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However:
HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER
The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races.
Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate.
16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations.
By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world.
The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals.
The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences.
The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now.
The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”.
However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development.
And that the primary difference between the races that causes conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the bigger upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means.
So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms).
So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place.
The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think.
Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 15:38:00 UTC
-
**You can’t.** All that happens in mixed race cultures, is that castes replace r
**You can’t.** All that happens in mixed race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288293991767498&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 14:46:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034814582521561088