Human BioDiversity and the Dark Enlightenment

Here at Occam’s Razor we have previously discussed elements of the Dark Enlightenment / Reaction with the posts “What are Characteristics of the Dark Enlightenment?” and “The Laws of the Cathedral“. Now reader Zith Met has made the following contribution explaining what he thinks these elements are.

 

Dark Enlightenment / Neoreaction Summary

By Zith Met

Neoreaction, also known as the Dark Enlightenment, is primarily a critique of modern liberalism.  It is a reaction to the growing oppression of the left and the increasing ineffectiveness of the US and other Western governments.  It is not based on mainstream American conservatism–instead, it is defined by an attempt to use science and reason to uncover basic rules which govern human relations.  Where modern liberalism sees humans as blank slates molded by society and free will, neoreactionaries see people as governed by incentives and their own inherent natures.  This outlook unites such disparate areas as HBD (human biodiversity), economic commentary, and anti-democratic political theory.

Mainly approaching from the perspective of HBD, I have created a list of some important conclusions related to neoreaction:

1. All human traits are heritable.
2. Racial and ethnic groups form genetic clusters.
3. Genetic differences result in varying frequencies of behavioral traits between racial and ethnic groups.
4. Human evolution can be relatively fast, and even populations without significant migration can change significantly over the course of hundreds of years.
5. People are naturally happiest around others with similar traits.  Trust and other positive community attributes decline with increasing diversity.
6. People with different psychological traits tend to have different political preferences.
7. Culture, including politics and morality, is largely a manifestation of the collective traits of a group of people.  Society is not an accident of environment or history, but a result of the actions of people in that society.
8. IQ and other traits with strong genetic bases such as aggression levels explain most inequality between nations.
9. Racial inequality within the US is attributable to genetic factors rather than structural, institutional, or other forms of racism.
10. Favoritism toward one’s own group, known as clannishness, is an example of a trait that varies between racial/ethnic groups due to historic breeding patterns (particularly levels of inbreeding or outbreeding) and selection pressures.
11. Northern Europeans have evolved low clannishness due in part to a high degree of outbreeding historically encouraged by some forms of Christianity.
12. Low clannishness leads to progressivism/universalism, which is based on the idea that all groups of people are fundamentally equivalent, and so they all should be treated equally.  The Cathedral refers to all institutions that promote this and suppress any contrary views, particularly universities and most media sources.
13. In-group preferences are a prisoner’s dilemma.  A homogeneous, universalist society with low in-group preferences tends toward the optimal outcome (cooperation).
14. The introduction of more clannish people into a society with low clannishness results in a move away from the optimal outcome of the prisoner’s dilemma (defection).  People who favor their own group have an advantage over those who don’t.
15. The defection problem can be resolved by suppressing clannishness and promoting assimilation or by adopting one’s own clannishness and promoting separatism.  Note that each solution is prohibited by the Cathedral’s multiculturalist ideology.
16. Technological changes (the robot economy) are reducing the need for labor. This is increasing inequality and causing society to move in the direction of neofeudalism.  Socialism is one possible response to this.
17. Socialism is fundamentally incompatible with open borders.
18. Open borders create externalities in the emigrant countries–pressures that would prevent those peoples from overpopulating the land under their control are removed.
19. Open borders also result in intelligence declines in first-world countries.  Societies with declining intelligence will have a hard time supporting their people and maintaining their standard of living.
20. Many socialist policies also promote dysgenic breeding and a resulting decline in the intelligence of a population.
21. Affirmative Action and other racial preferences can be viewed as political spoils, so we may expect racial preferences in the US to grow stronger as minorities increase in number and power.
22. Institutions tend to grow, ossify, and become increasingly fragile over time.  Eventually, complex systems collapse.
23. A functional society keeps incentives, human nature, and society’s needs all in accord. Modern society does not, leading to anomie, atomization, economic malaise, and misery.

 

Poll: Would you rather be governed by Putin or Obama?

I’ve heard many people talking about this recently, so I thought I’d put up a readers’ poll.

 

Personally, I’d go with Putin in a heartbeat. The anti-Russia sentiment in the USA now almost entirely stems from a group of neocons who are still angry because (1) things that allegedly happened to their Ashkenazi grandparents and great-grandparents a long time ago Russia and (2) Putin thought it better for Russian resources to be controlled by ethnic Russians rather than a small cadre of oligarchs.

Putin may be no angel, but at least he kicked out the corrupt oligarchs, is making efforts to  curb immigration, is stabilizing white birthrates (although the “demographic crisis” is a myth), and has not let Russia’s ethnic ancestral traditions be completely trashed by globalist Cultural Marxists.  And Putin’s just a cool-looking alpha.

Thoughts?

Related:

Primer on Human Biodiversity and Immigration

Philip Giraldi on the Neocons, Ukraine, Russia, and the Oligarchs

Updates:

Comment: “And in terms of racial genetic distances, white Americans would be around 55x more closely related to Putin than to Obama (notwithstanding Obama’s white mom).”

And not only is Putin more athletic than Obama, he also is better educated.  While the “internationalist” Obama only has somewhat mastered English, the more “isolationist” Putin knows Russian, German and English.  (Funny thing, that. The “isolationist” Calvin Coolidge knew Latin, Greek, German, French and Italian, and the “isolationist” ancient Spartans had the best army of their time.)