During the second half of 2017, I wrote multiple articles which incrementally distanced myself from Traditionalism (i.e. the philosophy of Julius Evola et al.). This was partly caused by two altercations with “Traditionalists”: one with Amerika.org, and the other with Christians who advocated a purge of homosexuals. At that time Traditionalism seemed to be the root of all purity spiraling in the Dissident Right. In reaction to this purity spiraling, my philosophy veered towards a rather radical individualism in late 2017, but some could misconstrue what I wrote then as an advocacy of abandoning one’s ancestral nation. Eventually, as I watched and read some content by Greg Johnson, James J. O’Meara, Marcus Follin, and Thomas Rowsell discussing Traditionalism, I saw that this purity spiraling was not a necessary consequence of Traditionalism.
So, in more recent months, I have been able to take a more impartial look at Traditionalism. The most obvious difference between Traditionalism and Propertarianism (which I have recently studied) is a metaphysical one: Propertariainism is deterministic and naturalistic, whereas Traditionalism is non-deterministic and, at least appears to be, supernaturalistic. This affects the manner in which the two systems approach the matter of religion: to the Traditionalists, the polytheism of our ancestors reflects an idea of transcendent divinity which exists independent of our thoughts; monistic conceptions of divinity are also frequent. To the Traditionalists following Evola, even one’s race, or ancestral lineage, has a transcendent and spiritual dimension. However, to the Propertarians and often the neo-polytheists, the deities are either restricted to being highly particular to an ethnic group or are mere abstractions and poetic or paedagogic representations; in many neo-polytheisms it is prohibited to regard gods as manifestations of a monistic or pantheistic Whole as that idea is rejected in favor of hard polytheism. I may further add the philosophy of Cosmotheism, as articulated by William L. Pierce, for comparison: Cosmotheism considers a “Whole” to exist, but it does not explicitly ascribe to the “Whole” a characteristic of being (instead of becoming); rather it seems to describe a Whole which is subject to continuous becoming.
There are certainly metaphysical disagreements that exist among the spiritual trailblazers in the dissident right. I cannot see these being resolved without, at the very least, a great deal of time and research, assuming any resolution is possible at all. Mystics may claim to experience, among many things, the transcendent world of being, but I cannot tell if this is, in fact, the case, or if abnormal neurochemistry is the only cause of these experiences. I may refer to Traditionalism in the future, but I will not claim that I know its assumptions to be true without sufficient reason and evidence (I am still a Molyneuxian in that sense 😉 ).
From very limited data, it has been generalized that agriculturalized populations, regardless of climate do tend to have higher intelligence by about 13 IQ points compared to non-agricultural populations (LINK). The explanation given was that the population growth induced by agriculture produced greater genetic diversity, which would have included the development of some gene variants which give rise to greater intelligence. I would add that individuals with slightly higher intelligence would have proven fitter to survive and reproduce in agricultural societies even in warm climates, and this is because the food surplus created by intensive agriculture can allow for economic niches which more intelligent individuals can utilize to their reproductive advantage by obtaining higher social status than ordinary peasants. Agriculture also produces more easily tradeable essential goods (grain) than hunting and gathering, and this produces a greater incentivize for cooperation. Cooperation must be maintained by laws, which often criminalize behaviors resorted to by less intelligent individuals (theft, murder, etc.), removing less intelligent individuals from the gene pool.
However, one common argument in favor of the hypothesis that agriculturalization increases intelligence may be incorrect. The observation that arctic Native Americans (genetically similar to East Asians) have significantly lower intelligence than agriculturalized East Asians fails to account for a possible non-genetic negative influence on IQ in arctic populations. The mercury pollution of fish and whale stocks can decrease the measured IQ of extant hunter-gatherer populations significantly; this includes arctic Native Americans (LINK). The influence of mercury needs to be controlled for in order to gain an accurate understanding of arctic peoples’ intelligence. One should also account for the reported intelligence of Mongolians, a historically nomadic pastoralist population, which according to Lynn and Vanhanen has an average IQ of 101, greater than that of arctic Native Americans, but less than that of the Chinese (105), Japanese (105), and Koreans (106). This Mongolian average IQ is also greater than that of the long agriculturalized population of Vietnam (94). This probably indicates that pastoralism has some of the eugenic effects associated with agriculture and that both agriculturalization, as well as climate, significantly influence the selection for intelligence.
Variations in climate likely affect several other characteristics besides intelligence. Cold weather can reduce child mortality by killing pathogens and pathogen vectors which cause illness disproportionately in children, removing a selective pressure which would be compensated for with higher fertility and earlier maturation. If a high birth rate is less necessary and maturation can be delayed, there can be greater energy investment in each individual child, which can allow for the development of greater intelligence. Higher intelligence in humans; as well as lower fertility, longevity, and delayed maturation; does appear to co-occur in human populations which have evolved in colder climates (Rushton, 1985)(Lynn and Vanhanen) (Rushton, 2004). There is some recent research indicating that the negative relationship between IQ and fertility exists even when controlling for other “potential mediator variables” (Boutwell, 2013). As usually implied by proponents of the cold-winters theory, living in northern latitudes in pre-modern times may also have its own reasons for positively selecting for intelligence as it would have been needed to plan ahead to cope with the limited food availability induced by cold winter weather.
The variation in life history strategies induced by climate cannot be attributed to the existence of greater “r selection” in tropical latitudes than in colder climates at more polar latitudes because cold weather itself is a seasonal, density-independent, and therefore “r-selective” pressure on northern populations (Anderson, 1991). The infectious diseases which plague the tropics are also more density-dependent and therefore more “K-selective” than seasonal cold weather, making the selective pressures in the tropics more “K-selective” than those in northern latitudes (Anderson, 1991). (r/K selection theory categorizes selective pressures by the degree to which these pressures depend on population density to exist (Pianka, 1970)). r/K selection theory on its own it does not appear to be the best way to understand the origins of life-history strategies, compared to demographic models examining the relationship between age-specific mortality and life-history (Reznick et al., 2002). J.P. Rushton noticed important data trends, but attributing of these trends to r/K selection was flawed.
There is some evidence, from measured reaction times, that intelligence has decreased by about 12 to 14 points among Europeans since the late 19th century (Woodley et al., 2013). The authors suggest that this could be due to a decline in infectious disease which previously limited the reproduction of the underclasses. However, one might also suspect that the underclasses could have eventually adapted to this selective pressure; perhaps this occurred, but it was only after the underclass population had been decreased significantly by disease, making it difficult for the underclasses to automatically rebound to their previous demographic percentage.
When considering what to write about, I remembered a 2016 press release which gives a more detailed look at British genetics which is not frequently discussed in the political right, and given the type of language used in its presentation, this is understandable. Like the mass media’s framing of the possibly dark-skinned “Cheddar Man”, a normal Mesolithic European who was not genetically a modern sub-Saharan African (LINK), the language used in the presentation of these results appears to be another ruse intended to create a narrative to justify current liberal immigration policy and cosmopolitanism in the UK. Nevertheless, the uninterpreted numerical results presented by AncestryDNA are intriguing and appear to fit with other genetic and historical information about the ethnogenesis of peoples of the British Isles.
Read the findings here, admixture percentages are included for different regions of the UK:
The three largest admixtures in the British Isles are:
“British”, an Anglo Saxon admixture (Somewhat of a misnomer as the Anglo-Saxons were not the original Britons). It reaches its highest percentage in England at 35-40 %, which agrees with earlier results on Anglo Saxon admixture in England, using DNA samples from actual Anglo-Saxon graves.
“West European” French/German admixture, primarily located in the areas once inhabited by the Continental Celts (starting c. 500 BC), and likely the genetic remains of this ancient people. It peaks in Southeastern England, possibly due to the Hallstatt culture’s greater influence in that area. It also generally correlates with the geographic distribution of the mostly continental French, German and Alpine Y-haplogroup R-U152/S28 in the British Isles.
“Celtic” Irish admixture (different from the Continental Hallstatt Celts). This Irish admixture is ubiquitous in the British Isles but most represented in the “Celtic Fringe” areas: Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This is the same pattern observed with the genetic affinity of modern Brits and Irish to Bronze Age Irish specimens from Rathlin Island (Cassidy et al., 2016), and the frequency of Y-haplogroup R-L21. It may be a genetic remnant of the first possible Celts to arrive in the British Isles in the Bronze Age. In some areas of Britain, it could also be partly imported by migrations and raids out of Ireland onto the western coast of Britain around 400 AD and about a century later in western Scotland creating the Dál Riata kingdom.
The Scandinavian admixture is around 9-10% throughout England and, not surprisingly, peaks in the East Midlands, the heart of what was once Danelaw territory. Trace levels (~1-4 %) of admixtures from the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe are ubiquitous throughout the British Isles.
The results obtained by Ancestry DNA show “British”/Anglo-Saxon admixture peaking, not in East Anglia (as in Martiniano et al., 2016), but in Yorkshire, the East Midlands, and Southwestern regions of England. It may be that the genetic model produced by Ancestry is able to be more accurate because it considers several admixtures from distinct geographic areas of Western Europe, helping to minimize errors caused by the aggregation of regional admixtures during analysis.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the knowledge of wether or not the genomes from Anglo-Saxon remains were used to define the “British”/Anglo-Saxon admixture of AncestryDNA. However, in the comments below one amateur genetics article, one individual, Bruce Petersen, with three grandparents from Denmark and one from Norway reported having 63 % “British” admixture, and 33 % Scandinavian admixture. This result suggests that the “British” admixture of AncestryDNA is indeed Anglo-Saxon, as it is found at a clear majority percentage in the approximate geographic homeland of the Anglo-Saxons (Denmark) and to a lesser degree in England, and to an even smaller degree in other parts of the British Isles which have not been permanently settled by Germanic peoples. A parsimonious explanation to make with this data is that the Anglo-Saxons and Danes are those responsible for bringing the “British”/Anglo-Saxon admixture of AncestryDNA to England. If this is true, the name of this admixture as “British” is mistaken; it should perhaps be called a “Jutlandic” or “North-Sea” admixture instead.
The combination of “British”/Anglo-Saxon and “Scandinavian” admixture totaling around 50% throughout most of England may be why modern Danes have such a high genetic affinity to modern Brits (even compared to Norwegians and Swedes) as indicated in Athanasiadis et al., 2016. At Eupedia it is reported that about 50 % of the Y-chromosomal lineages in England are likely of Germanic origin, and given the ~50 % Germanic autosomal admixture in England, a parsimonious explanation is that nearly equal numbers of men and women migrated to England among the Anglo-Saxons, and possibly among the Danes also.
It would appear from the modern distribution of both Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian admixture that there was likely heavy gene-flow from England into Wales sometime after the early middle-ages, possibly in the Norman era.
East Anglia and London, areas of Britain which experienced disproportionately high Romanization, not surprisingly have the greatest Italian/Greek admixture in the UK at 2.53 % and 2.51 %, and the greatest Iberian admixture at 3.43 % and 3.39 %, respectively. An obvious explanation for this is that the Romanization of these regions would have allowed for the introduction of some admixture from the Mediterranean basin, although it was only enough to have a lasting impact at trace levels.
London has the greatest “European Jewish” admixture (3.66 %) in the UK, well above that of the rest of the country, including East Anglia, at ~1.60 % or less. This may indicate a disproportionately high concentration of Jews around London at some time in history, a few of which left their tribe and intermarried with the non-Jewish population.
The Finnish-Russian trace admixture which peaks in Scotts may have been brought by Saami admixed Norsemen, or it could be a calculation error caused by the greater Mesolithic hunter-gatherers admixture in the Scotts (especially Orcadians), which is also present in Northeastern Europe.
Admixture similar to that of an individual of the Sredny Stog culture was found in Hittite-era Anatolians by Davidski, using qpAdm. In corroboration with other data supporting the Steppe Hypothesis for Indo-European origins, this would support a hypothesis that Indo-European language began developing on the Pontic-Caspian steppe prior to the Yamnaya culture (3300 – 2600 BC) as the pre-Anatolians would have developed out of the Sredny Stog culture in Ukraine c. 4500-3500 BC. David W. Anthony previously suggested this hypothesis for the origin of the (now extinct) Anatolian language family, that it is a result of early Indo-Europeans migrating out of the Sredny Stog culture (southward along the west coast of the Black Sea, by his estimation) and eventually into Anatolia. He makes this argument based on archaeological, linguistic, and mythological evidence, in The Horse the Wheel and Language. But now it appears that we have some genetic evidence which agrees with this hypothesis as well.
It is fairly easy to decide natural law on the matter of homosexual conduct, that it is lawful so long as it is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, and free of negative externalities, and this is completely possible in every system I can think of allowing for both private and common property. Different commons (common property) allowing for the tolerance of different degrees of self-expression, and different ways of enforcing the limits of self-expression, may be produced contractually. How insurance companies and socialized healthcare handle the costs of the physical illnesses which homosexuals commonly acquire, to prevent them from creating certain negative externalities can be contractually enumerated. I think it is likely that a vaccine for HIV will be developed sometime in the next century, eliminating the need for the very expensive preventative measure PrEP.
Regarding the etiology of homosexuality, I think that it results from a systemic condition which affects organ morphologies, most often towards reversed sexual dimorphism. This hypothesis appears to be supported both by differences in facial contours (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017), which are determined by musculoskeletal development and for the structure of the brain (Savic and Lindström, 2008). This systemic condition could, in turn, be caused by genetics, and/or by hormones which affect gene expression in development. A correlation has been observed between childhood sexual abuse and reported homosexuality, especially in males (Friedman et al., 2011), but there is also a correlation between the childhood sexual abuse of males and gender-nonconformity regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim (Xu and Zheng, 2015). Given that homosexual males are more gender atypical in certain outwardly visible morphologies, habits, and neural activity (which influences personality) than heterosexual males (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017; Savic and Lindström, 2008), it logically follows why they would be at a higher risk for childhood sexual abuse than heterosexual males given these findings (Xu and Zheng, 2015). It is also difficult to argue that psychic trauma such as child molestation will lead to consistently different musculoskeletal morphologies, which is apparent in the consistently different facial contours of homo and heterosexuals (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017). As far as I can tell, the most parsimonious assessment of this information is that the development of sexual orientation is probably in-utero and that it precedes any psychic trauma, not the other way around.
Given the reversed sexual dimorphism present in at least a very significant number of homosexuals, many of them may simply be unsuited to take certain social and reproductive roles normatively taken by heterosexuals, and this must be understood by natalists. Notwithstanding, if homosexual individuals demonstrate abilities to act in the normal roles of mothers and fathers in heterosexual unions, and these unions can exist independent of romantic interests (practically impossible with the current social norms and divorce laws in the West), I do not argue for a prohibition against them taking such social or reproductive roles normally taken by heterosexuals.
Regarding the repeated claims associating homosexual male teleiophiles (i.e. homosexual men attracted to physically mature men) with pedophilia, a disproportionate number of male pedophiles may be homosexual pedophiles, but it does not follow that these homosexual pedophiles are simply a subset of homosexual teleiophiles. There is evidence based on genital responses to visual and auditory stimuli of 2,359 male subjects that teleiophilic homosexual men have no greater sexual attraction to children than teleiophilic heterosexual men do and that homosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles actually have less sexual attraction to adult men than heterosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles have to adult women (Blanchard et al., 2010). Very similar results, specifically regarding homosexual and heterosexual male teleiophiles, were obtained in an earlier study (Freund et al., 1973). Therefore, I see no reason to consider homosexual male teleiophiles inherently more likley than heterosexual male teleiophiles to be sexually interested in children. FYI: in the context of this article (the one you are reading right now), the word homosexual is shorthand for homosexual teleiophile, unless otherwise indicated.
Although no correlation between sexual orientation and an interest in propagandizing sexual behaviors to minors has been analytically determined to exist (to my knowledge), the stereotypes remain due to anecdotes of incidents with radical activists. Homosexuals and bisexuals must signal that they pose no such threat in order to cooperate. However, this is not enough for many conservatives, usually for religious reasons. If they are cognizant of one’s non-heterosexuality, the cost of attempting to cooperate with such religious conservatives is almost always greater than what might be gained from doing so. Therefore, such an attempt at cooperation, in that situational context, is not a rational course of action.
There are some individuals who do not want to merely refrain from cooperation with homosexuals but want to violently persecute them. Being an ethnic nationalist, I am often in disagreement with Dr. Jordan Peterson regarding politics. However, he articulates accurately that we all have a capacity for cruelty, what he calls a “shadow” or “dark side”. Homosexuals have often faced this dark side in bullies and authoritarians. Observing such a capacity for cruelty, I have realized that I must integrate my own “dark side”/shadow: my past failure to do so has caused me to lack self-respect and to feel vulnerable, resulting in my resort to rhetorical defenses which made me appear silly to some people. Later I realized the importance of integrating the shadow, as I heard Dr. Peterson explain it in roughly these terms: one must be able to be cruel, not because one wishes to be cruel but to avoid being a victim to those who are. Machiavelli was correct: “… love peace but know how to wage war” (Art of War: 1, 12).
WARNING: I am writing in “autistic” mode which most people will find counterintuitive.
I agree with JF that “moral” nihilism is a factually true position. But I also consider subjective valuations to be necessary for human life, and I think that societies cannot exist in a state of order when the subjective values of the populace are significantly divided. The claim that there is an objective axiology of good and bad may keep order both in a society and in an individual, even though it is a factually incorrect claim (as far as I can tell). [edited]
The problem with Stefan Molyneux’s argument for objective values of good and bad is the same problem as the consensus-based “traditionalist” argument for objective values of good and bad: the naive idea that all humans and all human groups have the same “moral” intuitions, when in fact they don’t, and this often shows itself in very non-trivial matters; moral intuitions differ with biological parameters such as intelligence, personality and evolutionary strategy — and this is one reason why it is not normatively preferable to force interpersonal association.
However, if we take the point of view provided by Curt Doolittle, then it seems that JF (and Ryan Faulk) miss something: that morality, operationally defined, is not valuations of “good and bad” but simply a fact of non-parasitism present in some behaviors. If Doolittle is correct, some behaviors can be objectively described as moral and others as immoral, but whether they are good or bad is a preferential value judgment. I ultimately side with Doolittle on this particular point, he does manage to maintain Hume’s Law in his concept of moral objectivism, but I would be willing to openly discuss this topic with JF and/or Faulk if I have time.
I should note before finishing that the notion of objective good and bad, as well as the Aristotlean understanding of telos, which inherently implies an ought that is an is,conflates normative and positive., i.e. violates Hume’s Law. [edit: It also seems to be an anthropomorphic mental error, as far as I can tell].