After several unempirical, and overly philosophical attempts to determine the origins of general political ideologies, I have attempted to gain more accurate information on the subject.
Please keep in mind that what is being discussed here is characteristics related specifically to ideologies and sentiments, not necessarily political parties, as one’s choice to vote democrat or republican, for instance, could depend on one of a number of ideologies or sentiments favored by that party (it makes for imprecise analysis to use party as a proxy for sentiment or ideology).
In a dataset drawn from the US, both conservatism and religiosity had strong negative correlations with general intelligence measured in adolescence, when age, sex, race, earnings, education, and religion were held as control variables (Kanazawa, 2010). These correlations [of political ideology and religiosity] with intelligence are twice as strong compared to those relating political ideology to sex or to race, or religion to sex (Kanazawa, 2010). General intelligence, in the view of Satoshi Kanazawa, enables one to deal with the costs of novel phenomena, hence its correlation with liberalism (Kanazawa, 2010). In another study, data from the UK showed racial prejudice, largely mediated through ideology, to be associated with relatively lower intelligence in childhood, and data from the United States showed prejudice against homosexuals to be associated with poor abstract reasoning, often mediated through authoritarianism; education and socioeconomic status were controlled for both data sets (Hodson & Busseri, 2012). Conservatives also think less analytically and more holistically than liberals (Talhelm et al., 2014), similar to most people outside of Western cultures.
Libertarians, unlike “conservatives”, think in a very analytical or characteristically “Western” manner (link). People who have classical liberal sentiments towards economics and social issues also have above average verbal intelligence (Carl, 2014). Data from Great Britain and Brazil indicates center-right, and to a lesser degree center and center-left views correlating with higher intelligence (Rinderman, et al., 2011). Anti-regulation and economic “conservatism”, a.k.a. economic “liberalism” in European vocabulary, also correlates with higher intelligence (link).
As far as beauty and ugliness go, the trends are that left-leaning scholars appear to be more attractive than right-leaning scholars and right-leaning politicians more attractive than left-leaning politicians (link).
Now I will add my own anecdotes and notes related to this subject
(edited) the original r/K selection theory studies density-dependent selection, and modifications to the model have been made to account for other variables; r/K selection theory may be accurately considered incomplete, but not “disproven”. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/ has explained the problems with r/K selection theory in the way it has been used by Anonymous Conservative.
Social conservatives are often highly natalist in sentiment, often appear to marry early, and sometimes display low trust sentiments. I am tempted to say that these characteristics, along with their lower average IQ, greater holistic thinking, and poorer abstract reasoning, associates them with certain clannish populations. Clannish Europeans east of the Hajnal Line responded to high mortality with high fertility and high nuptiality, and appear to have lower average intelligence than historically outbred Europeans. Various types of liberalism likely derive from the less clannish, outbred European strategy associated with higher IQ, lower mortality, lower fertility, and more people remaining unmarried. See the bloggers: HBD chick, JayMan, and Evo and Proud for more information on the effects of outbreeding and other selective pressures on Western Europeans. Alternative Hypothesis has also done interesting work correlating certain allele variations with political attitudes often different between indigenous Westerners and third world migrants.
There have been some disparate rightists who have claimed that Kennewick Man (a human who lived in what is now Washington State, USA 8,358 ± 21 14C years before present) is European in ethnic origin. These people are obviously not informed of the genetic study done on The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man which revealed him to be most closely related to modern Native Americans.
The genetic admixture which most closely relates Kennewick Man, Native Americans, and other East Eurasians with Europeans comes from the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), a population living in Siberia at least 24,000 years ago which was most closely related to early West Eurasians (link, link). Ancient Y chromosomes of this ANE group, uncovered from Mal’ta (MA-1) and Afontova Gora (AG3), belong to the Y chromosomal haplogroup R, a branch of the Y chromosomal haplogroup P which diversified c. 31,900 years before present. Some migrations out of Siberia after this time are likely responsible for the current predominance of Y chromosomal haplogroups Q and R (branches of P) in Native Americans and Northern Europeans, respectively (I happen to belong to R-L513), as well as the ANE admixture found in these groups.
Davidski at Eurogenes also suggests (link) that there may have been a very early incursion of ANEs into the East Eurasian gene pool. If this is true, it may be responsible for the predominance of certain non-P lineages of Y-haplogroup K2, including K2a, K2b1, K2c, K2d, M, N, O, and S (which diverged from the ancestor of haplogroup P around 45400 years before present) among a variety of East Eurasians including the Ust’-Ishim Man from Siberia 45,000 years ago. Keeping in mind that the ANEs were most closely related to early West Eurasians, it is also possible that such an early incursion of ANE admixture is responsible for the East Eurasian presence of Y haplogroup C, which diversified ~47,900 YBP and was also found in some ancient West Eurasians such as Kostenki-14 and the Mesolithic La Brana specimen. Regarding the impact on mitochondrial (maternal) lineages, an early addition and ANE admixture to the East Asian gene pool may have brought mitochondrial haplogroup N which is normally found in West Eurasians, but is also significantly present in some very disparate East Eurasian populations such as Australian Aborigines, and certain Siberian and Native American peoples (and even the Ust’-Ishim specimen).
East Asians such as the Han, Koreans and Japanese also appear to have received a later addition of ANE admixture, but it was much less than that received around the same time by Siberians and the Siberian ancestors of Native Americans (see the supplementary data on pages 145-147 in here). Kennewick Man appears to have received 40-45 % of his genome from this later ANE admixture event; the Han, Koreans and Japanese received about 10-12 %, and the Andamanese Onge, an isolated population in the Indian Ocean, presumably received little to none and was used as a control in the analysis.
What East Eurasians (including Australoid peoples, East Asians, Native Americans, and Siberians) possess which differentiates them from West Eurasians (“Causaoids”) is admixture from another, apparently basal East Eurasian group which diverged 60,000-65,000 YBP from other Eurasians. This basal East Eurasian group seems a likely origin of the East Eurasian presence of Y haplogroup D (which is basal to all other Eurasian Y haplogroups except for E) and mitochondrial haplogroup M, which both formed between 60,000 and 65,000 YBP. Perhaps not coincidentally, both mitochondrial haplogroup M and Y chromosomal haplogroup D reach relative maxima in Tibet and Japan. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Y haplogroup D also diversified around the same time as Y haplogroups C and K2 (~45,000 YBP). This would seem to indicate that the East Eurasian gene pool underwent a population bottleneck until around 45,000 YBP when it received a large amount of ANE admixture (which appears already present in the Ust’-Ishim man from this time period). Under this model, over the next ~40,000 years, the East Eurasian gene pool underwent a massive geographic and genetic diversification.
Recently there has been a major comments war on Amerika.org regarding the website moderator’s take on one of my posts which I published a few weeks ago. Dare I import the war onto my own blog? Apparently, I am insane enough to do this.
Do the Irish have “negroid” admixture?
(The following map includes both Sub-Saharan and North African components)
Apparently not [the data for this map gives 0% African admixture to the Irish].
West Asian (Northern Middle Eastern) admixture?
It is found at low frequencies throughout Northwestern Europe.
Admixture related to Semitic peoples?
There is a small amount in all Europeans except for a few Eastern Europeans, the Saami, Finns, Basques, and Catalans.
So what makes the Irish a little bit different from the English, and pulled slightly in the same direction as Iberians are on a genetic principal component analysis?
A bit more Atlantic admixture (combination of Neolithic farmer and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer) most likely from the Megalithic period is responsible for this. The Irish have more than the English, but the English have some of this admixture as well. It peaks in the Basques, is relatively high in Eastern Iberia and the “Celtic Fringe”, followed by other geographically Western European populations, but is much lower in the Eastern Mediterranean, Near East, and Northern Africa.
This admixture peaks in the Basque population and appears to be a blend of Near Eastern Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic European Hunter-Gatherers. It matches mostly the extent of the Atlantic Megalithic culture. Several ancient samples were added to GEDMatch and analysed with Eurogenes K15. Nine Megalithic Iberian samples (3211-1518 BCE) had an average Atlantic percentage of 38.8%, similar to modern Basques. Three samples from the Remedello culture in Late Neolithic northern Italy (3483-1773 BCE) scored an average of 35.2%, considerably more than modern Italians, even Sardinians. One Megalithic Irish sample from Ballynahatty had 32.7% of Atlantic, about the same as modern Irish people. (source)
If you don’t like these admixture maps, then go argue with Maciamo Hay on Eupedia about them. I have my own life to live.
The majority of this article will be about human biodiversity, however first let’s start with some quotes by Fredrich Nietzsche in order to get acquainted with the idea I am about to argue regarding how great civilizations come into being.
“Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power–they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).” –Fredrich Nietzsche from Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, paragraph 257 (emphasis mine)
“There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,–I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition–even in the same man, within one soul. The distinctions of moral values have either originated in a ruling caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled–or among the ruled class, the slaves and dependents of all sorts.” –Fredrich Nietzsche from Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, paragraph 260 (emphasis mine)
Now obviously there is an IQ requirement in a population for any civilization to develop out of it, however, even in parts of the world where the average IQ is relatively high, such as Europe, and East Asia, we observe that higher, more innovative civilizations, which value both the individual and the collective, develop only under specific genetic conditions, namely a combination of humans who have evolved in a settled agricultural lifestyle over millennia, being genetically pacified, with little or no disposition towards competitive, highly independent, domineering behavior, and a different, aristocratic group, exercising “master-morality”, usually recently descended from hunter-gatherers, who act as the domesticators of other humans; these are Nietzsche’s “barbarians” from the quote above. I will set forth two examples: Northwestern Europe and Japan. This should hopefully clear up why, for instance, Japan has been more open to an individualistic, free-market economy, whereas China exists as a quasi-communist state with totalitarian rules on how many children one can have etc. It should also show why it was countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and Scandinavian countries which have both become very wealthy and made the most scientific and technological advancements in the modern era, whereas much of Southern and Eastern Europe lagged behind. To put it in visual terms, I attempt to put forth ideas regarding why the following two maps are different:
As a side note, one leftist National Socialist website (aryanism.net) which I have previously criticized, prizes the agricultural, genetically pacified phenotypes as “Aryan”, arguing that this is the phenotype necessary for civilizations to develop while condemning the paleolithic phenotypes. This, however, is an incomplete view of the entire picture, for, as I have started to argue, and will continue in arguing, a combination of neolithic and paleolithic phenotypes is ultimately what has produced the greatest civilizations of mankind.
It has been fairly well established by geneticist Iosif Lazaridis that Europeans owe a great portion of their ancestry to early farmers who wandered in from Anatolia around 7000 BC during the Neolithic (here). However, in the present day, North-Western Europeans only owe about half (probably less, actually) of their ancestry to these farmers, the rest coming from various hunter-gatherer groups, and their descendants, such as Indo-European pastoralists from the Pontic Steppe (here). The net effect is that Europeans occupying a broad belt from Ireland to Western Russia possess large quantities of ancestry both from early agriculturalists and from hunter-gatherers who only started using agriculture more recently, during the late Neolithic and Bronze Age. If one goes too far north, the genetics of the hunter-gatherers predominate, and as one goes to the south of this central region, into the Mediterranean basin, the genetic admixture from Neolithic Anatolian Farmers becomes dominant.
It is my opinion that the most successful civilized nations of Europe, namely, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Germany, (and to a lesser degree, Northern Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, and Russia) have been so successful, not necessarily due to early adoption of manorialism, but rather due to this balance of genetic input from both genetically pacified farmers, who were accustomed to a settled, relatively peaceful existence, as well as the more mobile, “barbaric” in Nietzschean terms, Indo-Europeans who were descended primarily from hunters and fishers who had recently adopted a highly competitive pastoralist lifestyle on the Pontic steppe (see David W. Anthony’s The Horse the Wheel and the Language). The aristocracies of early Greece and Rome would have also possessed this ideal mix of genetically inherited traits, being descended from Indo-European invaders who married local Neolithic farmers, introducing the early Greek and Italic languages into the Mediterranean basin. This aristocracy is practically gone now, however, through an overwhelming genetic absorption into the conquered Neolithic farmer populace, who were ultimately descended primarily from early Near-Eastern agriculturalists.
The end result of the ideal genetic admixture which I have described is a people which are both civilized and politically organized, and also are also willing to innovate, take risks (like exploring the New World), and challenge old notions of thought, as was done in the scientific revolution.
The Japanese, compared to some other East Asian populations, such as the Han, possess large amounts of ancestry from a group of hunter-gatherers who did not partake in early rice farming during the Neolithic (these hunter-gatherers were known as the Jomon people). This is assessed quantitatively in the following study, which you can read here. An excerpt from the abstract reads: “Our results showed that the genetic contributions of Jomon, the Paleolithic contingent in Japanese, are 54.3∼62.3% in Ryukyuans and 23.1∼39.5% in mainland Japanese, respectively. Utilizing inferred allele frequencies of the Jomon population, we further showed the Paleolithic contingent in Japanese had a Northeast Asia origin.”
The Jomon people had long inhabited Japan since the Palaeolithic, whereas another population, the Yayoi, who brought intensive rice farming to Japan, were effectively newcomers from the Asian mainland, and perhaps the descendants of the original domesticators of rice themselves. Thus, like many Europeans, the Japanese owe their ancestry to both a population genetically pacified through evolution in a relatively peaceful, settled, agricultural society and another population primarily descended from paleolithic hunter-gatherers, who ultimately would have organized into tribes and needed to compete over animals as a food source.
It is also interesting to note that the Japanese Emperor (whose lineage, according to legend, is around 2700 years old, predating the Yayoi period by almost 400 years) possesses Y-chromosomal haplogroup D (see source), which is found to a high degree in Japan, and almost universally among the Ainu (who are mostly descended from the Jomon), but is also much less frequent in Korea and Eastern China where the Yayoi agriculturalists migrated from. Perhaps this is evidence that part of the Japanese aristocracy, as on might think from Nietzsche, was originally descended from the Jomon “barbarians”, and not the more civilized Yayoi from the East Asian continent.
If you want to see a full explanation of the genetic history of Japan and its relationship to the rest of East Asia, which I have abbreviated here, you can visit this website. In summary, the combination of the Jomon and Yayoi people in Japan of the has produced a highly orderly, but also innovative, culture which is more individualistic than its mainland neighbors of China and Korea. Just look at where Japan is on the world values chart below compared to other East Asian countries:
So, In addition to IQ, other factors clearly need to be addressed in understanding the success of a civilization.
If the people are too genetically pacified through evolution over millennia of non-competitive, settled agriculture, a civilization runs the risk of stagnation where innovation is minimal, and the individual’s wishes are grossly disrespected by the collective. This, for instance, is likely what contributed to the formation of communist China and fascist Italy. This is also likely why the historically-speaking, intellectually repressive Catholic Church has remained religiously dominant in the Western Mediterranean while being rejected by the less genetically pacified peoples of Northern Europe during the reformation.
On the other hand, if people have only been agriculturalized for a brief period of time, being descended largely from hunter-gatherers and having evolved for a tribal, often violent existence, civilization cannot develop easily due to a predominance of aggressive, often internecine warlike behavior, which does not allow for enough cooperation to develop an orderly society. The Vikings and early Germanic tribes perhaps come to mind the most here, but (throughout history) the Sottish highlands, the Baltic states, and Northern Russia, have also fallen within this description. Within East Asia, the Ainu are perhaps the best example of this type of a group descended primarily from hunter-gatherers, being a culturally independent people which has never had the organizational capacity to become politically dominant over the Japanese archipelago, but did, in fact, engage in repeated battles with the Japanese and Chinese during the late medieval period (according to Wikipedia).
So it is ultimately genetic balance (a golden mean as Aristotle might say) which must be achieved for an advanced civilization to continue. This usually occurs through the combination of a “barbarian” ruling class descended recently from hunter-gatherers, on top of a large, evolutionarily pacified agricultural class. Usually, these two classes mix to a degree resulting in individuals with the ideal balance of both traits, allowing for an organized, yet independent and innovative civilization. We might look to the future wondering of this ideal balance will continue to survive massive amounts of immigration. An ethnostate is one solution to preserve this genetic ideal, as the Japanese pretty much already have. Northwestern Europeans, on the other hand, including many European-Americans do not possess this yet.
I really recommend watching this recent video by Stefan Molyneux on why civilizations rise and fall if you found my article interesting.
I have felt compelled to write this post because I feel that I have not made it sufficiently clear why I defend the political views that I do on this blog. In time I may amend, or modify this post to clarify my position. It boils down largely to the fact that a house divided cannot stand. If a political nation includes large factions of people who disagree on everything political and hate each other’s guts for it, there is no reason to keep the country in one piece. Doing so results in wasteful damage to persons, property, and culture. In addition to this, the human species is biologically diverse, and without a means of preserving this biodiversity, it would be impossible to continue in whatever evolutionary path our particular ancestors have been in for tens of thousands of years up to the present time. Melting everyone into the same genetic pot would make whatever evolutionary adaptations we possess different to other human populations to be thinly dispersed in the human species at best, and in the case of recently evolved recessive traits, it would practically eliminate them. It would be like reversing the evolutionary clock of Homo sapiens at least 70,000 years back to the time when modern humans first entered Eurasia from Africa, before branching out into all different parts of the world. This was when our relative genetic variation was very small compared to today. I think that my concern is especially relevant due to the fact that modernity has removed many selective pressures which got us where we are, and the large human population of the earth combined with the modern ease of mobility would inhibit recent (as in a few tens of thousands of years old) evolutionary specializations from re-emerging and becoming easily fixed (widespread through selective pressures) through reproduction within small, insular human populations.
I consider myself a universal ethnic nationalist in that I have no problem with any ethnic group establishing a nation-state unto itself. I also think that if people desire to create a multi-ethnic nation-state, that this is fine just so long as all the parties joining do so voluntarily. In fact, I envision that a mixture of mono-ethnic, and multi-ethnic nation-states is probably a fairly bright future mankind can hope for in the next half-millennium. Both types of nation-states are good for different reasons, have different advantages and disadvantages, and ultimately will play different, but important roles on a global scale. So there it is. I am not a true fascist, nor am I an imperialist. Those of you who might wish to accuse me of such positions lack the basis to do so.
I would also like to note that ethnic, rather than just white nationalism would be the most beneficial for European-Americans, namely because of our diverse ancestry. For instance, someone of Anglo-Germanic ancestry such as myself has a distinct biological and cultural heritage from someone of Italian or Slavic ancestry. If we wish to preserve what our ancestors brought over from Europe, I don’t think pouring everyone into a giant stew pot and seeing what comes out is the way to do so.