Theme: Ethnoculture

WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives. Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige. In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses. The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance. 1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj. (Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2) 2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America. 3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future). So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are: – They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization. – Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric. – The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not. – Simon Ström From Curt: The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict. Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups. And that is what we see

WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives. Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige. In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses. The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance. 1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj. (Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2) 2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America. 3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future). So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are: – They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization. – Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric. – The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not. – Simon Ström From Curt: The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict. Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups. And that is what we see

Anyone can build an empire with resources and technology to do so. You just can only live under the type of rule, institutions, and culture, necessary to maintain an empire. And that means european civilization retains many small nation states or it ceases to exist. Because you cannot have a high trust heterogeneous political order. It’s not possible. —“If your people are organically organized, clannish, tribal, egalitarian and have a thing for “purity” then they will also have high trust. You can expand, but you can’t build an empire or you’ll destroy it. Empires require bureaucracy and hierarchy as well as the extension of kinship to others. People that can’t (and didn’t!) do extended families can’t do empires. I guess It should be obvious.”— Markets for nations. Markets for regions. Markets for whatever we want – among our kin. We can build a civilization but we cannot build an empire.