Can Multi-Racial States Ever Function? Some Examples with Caveats.

Much has been written about the failure of multi-racial and multi-ethnic states.  Pierre L van den Berghe, Frank Salter, Steve Sailer, Robert D. Putnam, J. Phillipe Rushton, Jared Taylor, Satoshi Kanazawa, Kevin MacDonald, Miller McPherson, Neil Munro, Alex Rutherford, Rob Waugh and others have all written about the problems with multi-ethnic and multi-racial states.

From an evolutionary perspective, the instability of multi-racial states makes sense.  The more genetically diverse a state, the less likely people are willing to invest in the overall societal well-being.  For instance, small homogenous states (e.g. Sweden or Japan) of Europeans or North Asians seem to be at the pinnacle of state-wide altruism.  Everyone is closely related so by investing in the state (taxes, welfare, etc) one can still maximize his inclusive fitness.  But in multi-racial states, people aren’t so closely related, so there is probably no great desire to invest in the general well-being.  In fact, the more extreme — not only not investing in the general well-being but the general hostility between races — seems to be the norm in multi-racial states.   As Lawrence H Keeley points out in War Before Civilization, pre-modern history has really been a history of inter-tribal genocide.

OK, multi-racial states are failures.  Have they ever worked? Can they?

In an attenuated sense, there have been multi-racial and multi-ethnic success stories but there are many caveats to these stories.

Habsburg Empire: The differences here are largely ethnic, not racial, as the genetic distances between various European ethnic groups are small, but ethnic differences can still matter. The “other” is often defined by what is most proximate. The Hapsburg Empire was a multi-ethnic empire and largely successful.  What was its secret? Like most attenuated success stories, it pursued a policy of ethnopluralism — different groups were kept discrete; there were no governmental policies of forced assimilation, forced integration, etc.  The Habsburgs, in short, had no “busing programs” [carriage programs?].  Different ethnic groups were left alone and lived largely isolated from other groups.

The Roman Empire: Here we have a large multi-racial empire that was successful.  But, as in the case of the Hapsburg Empire, we have a policy of ethnopluralism — different racial groups largely live apart (except for mass immigration to Italy, which might have eventually undone the empire).  The Roman Empire largely cared only about collecting taxes and left various subjects alone.  In the classical sense, the Roman Empire was not a nation (a group of people related by blood — like Sweden or Japan) but but a collection of nations under the authority of the emperor.  There was also no forced assimilation.  While the Celts of Gaul eventually adopted Latin, most of the people of the East kept their indigenous languages and customs and Hellenized Greek remained the dominate language and culture of the East.

Switzerland: Like the Hapbsburg Empire, we here have a multi-ethnic state (not empire) and what is predominate in this multi-ethnic state is the demarcation of clear boundaries.  As this recent paper shows, ethnic boundaries in Switzerland are clearly demarcated and respected.

Pre-1964 United States:  In the 1960 census, the USA was 90% white, there were clear demarcations between white and non-white neighborhoods and the majority was self-confident and set an example for the rest.  Pre-1964 USA, although it had problems, probably could have continued indefinitely, but the Civil Rights Act and Immigration Act of 1964 have probably sealed its fate.

Success:  When surveying the above, factors that seem to lead to attenuated success stories are:  ethnopluralism (not multiculturalism), segregation, confident ruling class or majority, states demarcated into smaller nations, etc.

Failure: Notice that most Western nations today have the opposite of the above:  multiculturalism, the cult of diversity, forced integration, de-segregation, an unconfident ruling class or majority, policies of assimilation, etc.

Perhaps the most dangerous mix is when you don’t have a self-confident ruling class or majority, but rather a state divided into half between two racial groups, or into rough thirds of three racial groups with an assimilationist government trying forcing diversity upon everyone.  This has largely been the policy of the USA for the last 50 years and it’s falling apart.  A “race war” of sorts is already breaking out in California between blacks and mestizos.

Many pundits want to believe that the USA will mix into a “uniform coffee-colored nation” but this is highly unlikely.  Latin American countries have had centuries for this to occur but the patters across Latin America are largely the same:  a small European upper class and below it large segregated masses of Mestizos, Mulattoes and Amerindians, which are almost always mutually hostile.  In Latin American countries we most often see a color continuum; the lighter one is, the more likely he is to upper-class; the darker one is, the more likely he is to be lower class.  (Perhaps this has to do with a biological fact that fairer people are better adapted to function in modern states?)

In short, I tend to agree with the critics of multi-racial states.  They are rife with problems and often end in racial or ethnic strife.  And when multi-racial or multi-ethnic states are largely successful, the states or empires are clearly demarcated into smaller entho-states within the larger state.

Updates:

Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity

Advertisements

Is “Natural Law” Anti-Nature?

Noah Millman has a sensible post up at the American Conservative criticizing natural law.  He begins with the definition:

“If I understand the way natural law is supposed to work, it’s supposed to be an instance of deriving social “oughts” from a natural “is.” Human beings have to some degree immutable natures, natures we can comprehend with reason, and these natures determine, to a considerable degree, what social arrangements will “work” and what arrangements won’t – in the sense of contributing to human flourishing.”

And then goes on to criticize how an understanding of natural law is implemented.  (Rod Dreher tries to argue that natural law is necessary for morality, which Razib Khan criticizes.) What both Millman and Dreher miss, I think, is how ambiguous the question “What is Human Nature?” is. (Millman has the right instinct but doesn’t take his analysis to its logical end.) Let me explain.

The entire natural law tradition, although it is supposed to based on some Aristotelian understanding of man, is a massive structure of centuries of Thomistic scaffolding upon scaffolding, where the original structure is no longer recognizable.  (It’s like this rendition compared to the original Mona Lisa.)

Back to the source. Aristotle was primarily a biologist, whose understanding of biology influenced the rest of his philosophy.  His writings on ethics and politics are secondary to his writings on natural science.  Like Charles Darwin, Aristotle examined the natural world and drew empirical conclusions.  For instance, in politics Aristotle takes a rather relativistic stance that different forms of government are better suited for different groups of people. If Aristotle were alive today, he most certainly would be influenced by evolutionary theory.  Who knows, his views on ethics and politics might dovetail E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology.  (I know, I know, I unfairly summarize Aristotle in three sentences what a book could be written on.)  But this is not the case with natural law theory, which which now survives in some a priori stratosphere wholly removed  from any biological understanding of men. (There I go again…)

Look at almost any modern natural law theory and you will find a theory either wholly ignorant of or implicitly hostile toward evolutionary theory.  And on what are these natural law theories based? What is their view of “human nature” upon which this law is supposed to rest?  A bunch of a priori assumptions that probably have little resemblance to reality.

As those of us who are part of the “Dark Enlightenment / Anti-Enlightenment” already know, there really isn’t a “human nature.”  It’s an oversimplification.  As  Johan Bolhuis, Peter Frost, Cochran & Harpending and others have recently noted, humans have undergone more selection in the past 10,000 years than in the previous 40,000 years.  In short, there are “human natures” (plural), and these “natures” largely correspond to what we think of as continental races – discrete groups of people who underwent natural and sexual selection to adapt to particular circumstances.  (Heck, we’re now learning that different races aren’t even completely the same species.)

Thus, natural law theory is, in many respects, anti-nature in that it doesn’t wholly incorporate a realistic understanding of human biodiversity.  If there is a true “natural law,” it’s the recognition of HBD.

Update:

Here are two clear-cut examples to demonstrate that natural law theory does not have a natural appreciation of human nature.

Monogamy: Usually within the context of the gay marriage debate, natural law theorists tend to argue that the “natural” order of things is monogamy among a man and a woman. While “gay marriage” might be a new invention, the scope of monogamy is limited. Throughout human history, the norm has been polygyny (which actually accelerates selection). Most of human history has been a history of hunter-gatherers and among hunter-gatherers polygyny is the norm. In fact, the fragile institution of monogamy seems to only be strong among Europeans and North Asians (and even there it has its limits — e.g. Chinese emperors taking multiple concubines, 1/4 of the Irish descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, etc.) who switched over to agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago. So, while monogamy might be the natural current norm of North Asians and Europeans, is it for everyone?

The Abortion Debate: There’s a tendency of many natural law theorists to be obsessed with a “right to life,” which somehow is supposed to be grounded in nature. A quick survey of human history, however, shows otherwise. While the popularization of abortion might be fairly recent, the exposure of defective or unwanted infants has been the norm throughout human history — continuing even up until the 19th century. This practice was so widespread that it baffles the modern mind. While pro-life advocates today cite “high” numbers of abortions, these numbers are dwarfed by the numbers of infants routinely exposed throughout history.

While I’m not advocating a return to infant exposure or polygamy for Westerners (there are other reasons to reject these institutions), my point is that “natural law” seems to have no basis in a nature.  Again, many natural law theorists seem wholly ignorant of any naturalistic understanding of human nature.

Updates:

Historical Reality: Infanticide vs Abortion

Radish!

It’s not just a verb!

It’s also an online magazine, inspired by and/or ripping off (I’m not entirely sure which) the multitalented lover of kittehs & ferrets, Unamused.

Here, in all its muckraking glory, is the “Black History Month” edition of  Radish, published under the auspices of the The Carlyle Club – a.k.a. Students Against a Democratic Society.

Read the whole thing, and enjoy true “transgressivity” – as opposed to the conformism-masquerading-as-transgressivity ceaselessly promoted by The Cathedral.

Interesting Stories In the News

James Howard Kunstler talks about wishful thinking, economic collapse, decline of big retail, and immigration restriction.

Steve Sailer provides comprehensive analysis of white vote in 2012 election.

Nicholas Wade writes on anthropologist Napoleon A. Chagnon and notes that East Asian physical traits linked to 35,000-year-old mutation.

Vox Day argues that fewer whites means more polarized politics.

Satoshi Kanazawa ‏discusses why children must inherit their last names from their father, not their mother.

China invests heavily into discovering link between IQ and genetics.  (Meanwhile, US continues to suppress and unfund all research violating the taboos of political correctness.)

Education Realist writes on why we don’t teach proofs in geometry any more.

USDA/Mexican consulates tell Mexicans that receiving food stamps in USA won’t hurt chances of gaining American citizenship.

Sultan Knish argues that amnesty is a declaration of war by big government and big business against the American middle class.

Peter Brimelow provides six points to remember about the 2013 “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty War.

Daily Caller reports that 2 billion spent annually for Medicaid emergencies, largely for illegal immigrant baby deliveries.

The Iron Laws

I fear I have a weakness for grand theories that try to sum up The Truth, The Whole Truth & Nothing But The Truth about Life, The World & Everything in a simple rule, or two, or three. Of course, I realize this is a weakness: no doubt Life is too complicated to be summed up so easily, and The World is even more complicated than that, and, as for Everything? Forget about it!

Still, fwiw, here are my current favorite candidates for the two or three things you absolutely need to know even to begin to understand what’s going on around you:

1. The Iron Law of Oligarchy

This one is a classic. We owe it to Robert Michels, a German sociologist who began as a left wing extremist and ended as a fascist. Wikipedia sums it up like this: “rule by an elite, or ‘oligarchy,’ is inevitable.”

This is due to the “tactical and technical necessities” of organization: ‘Who says organization, says oligarchy’…the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule [is] impossible…representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite…

“The ‘iron law of oligarchy’ states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations.”

Mencius Moldbug, leaving out the why’s and the wherefore’s, sums up the point with admirable concision: “always and everywhere, strong minorities rule weak majorities.”

2. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy

This one is of more recent provenance, but I think it would be fair to call it a modern – or possibly even post-modern – classic. We owe it to the popular science fiction writer, Jerry Pournelle. Here are a couple of ways he’s phrased it:

(1) “In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.”

(2) “In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself…in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”

Unfortunately, MM doesn’t seem to have rephrased or expanded on this one, so let me give it a try:

In any human organization, there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the ostensible goals of the organization, and those who work to maximize the wealth and the power of the organization itself, and of their own status within it. Over time, the latter will always prevail over the former.

Shall I suggest examples, dear reader? Or should I leave that to you?

* * * * *

Understand these two simple rules, and the relationship between them, grasshopper, and I think you are on the path to understanding…well…Life, The World & Everything.

Are conservatism and liberalism in their death throes?

As Steve Sailer jokes, it seems that self-appointed leaders of Conservatism Inc have all but declared drone strikes on John Tanton and immigration restrictonists. From the Washington Post:

A new battle has flared inside the Republican Party in recent days as supporters of more-liberal immigration laws wage a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit the influential advocacy groups that have long powered the GOP’s hard-line stance on the issue…. Conservatives who are taking on the groups [Numbers USA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)], including [Marco] Rubio, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and officials of the Catholic Church, argue that the three organizations are motivated by far different philosophies than many of their Republican allies realize. Among those views: that population growth from increased migration threatens the environment.

So much for conservatives actually conserving anything meaningful, you know, like American wilderness from immigration-driven development or the host population of the historic United States from genetic extinction.  Norquist should just admit what he really wants:  to transform USA into a cheap-labor Third World regime. Rubio: to transform USA into mestizo backwater over which he thinks (probably naively) he’ll be the natural ruler. Catholic groups seem to want something similar, preferring semi-literate mestizo peasants to more critically-minded Westerners.

In the short term, this matters.  And, fortunately, there seems to be  a backlash to Rubio and Norquist trying to excommunicate immigration restrictionists from conservatism.  Many in Conservatism Inc. realistically know that Hispanics are not going to be voting Republican anytime soon (e.g. 74.7% of Mexican immigrants with children use some form of welfare) unless the GOP becomes the Democratic Party, which probably wouldn’t bother Rubio as long as he gets a meaningful position in its leadership.

In the long term, conservatism is toast.  All ideologies eventually die, and conservatism and liberalism are dying.  Both concepts have become internally incoherent and are past their expiration date.  (And, no, as Nick Land so eloquently explains, libertarianism has no chance.)  It’s hard telling what will replace these ideologies. Various identitaire movements in Europe (e.g. in France, Sweden, Greece and the UK) look promising and may be what the future holds for Westerners.  Or, what will replace the leftist/conservative dichotomy might be as disguised and unforeseen as if you were living through the years 1913 – 1946.

In the meantime, let’s hope that Rubio and Norquist overplayed their hand and get a summary smackdown.

Will Next Pope Be Non-Western (African or Mestizo)?

Although it probably wasn’t intentional, Matthew Yglesias had a telling tweet today about the selection of the next Pope:

“Catholics can rebrand with Hispanic Pope who makes random Tupac references.”

Yglesias was referencing (the non-mestizo) Catholic Marco Rubio who often and randomly quotes the gangster-rapper Saint Tupac de Harlem. (Reminds me of Idiocracy.) What Yglesias may or may not know, is how tribal identity is one of the most salient features of religion.   Although European Christianity stressed abstract theology, hunter-gatherer religion has been theology-free, instead emphasizing tribal solidarity, frenetic dance, trances, healing, etc.  Third World Christianity resembles more the latter.

As Christianity is quickly becoming a non-Western religion, one can soon expect a non-Western Pope, probably African or Mestizo.  Talking heads, especially conservatives, are already lobbying for some African witch doctor named Kodwo Appiah.  What many of these pundits fail to realize is how the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are almost meaningless when discussing Western vs. Non-Western religion.  HBD trumps ideology. African Pentecostalism and African Catholicism have more in common with each other than either does with Western Christianity.  Conservative Western Anglicans, who put their hope in conservative African Christianity, were a little taken back recently when a conservative African Anglican bishop called for “a war against the white man.”  While African or Mestizo Christians might be “pro-life” or “against gay marriage,” they most certainly harbor resentment against Westerners / whites, favor redistribution of wealth from the West to the Third World, want massive amounts of foreign aid or naive adoptive parents to feed the children are incapable of caring for, and want to flood the West with Third World immigration.

Christianity is a mess, especially in the West, which has taken on many of the worst aspects of political correctness and seems to be inundated with pathological altruism.  (I recently heard some religious talking head telling white people not to have white children but rather to adopt black children.)

Whither, Westerners?  As I see it, there are three options:  agnosticism / atheism, explicitly Pro-Western Christianity, or Neo-Paganism. (I’ll refrain from saying which I favor.)

What do you think?  Two polls: