The doom of the Elves is to be immortal, to love the beauty of the world, to bring it to full flower with their gifts of delicacy and perfection, to last while it lasts … – J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
Anyone aware of the three estates theory discussed by Butch Leghorn and the Propertarians understands the basis of what I am discussing here. The theory may be summarized thus: the first estate corresponds to the left, is feminine, and coerces with speech, the second estate corresponds to the right, is masculine, and coerces with force; and the third estate corresponds to the libertarians, is evolutionary (childish in a way), and coerces with remuneration. Some might object, saying that the first estate of the middle ages was not leftist; this is true, but it is largely due to the fact that it was closely tied with and arguably influenced by the second estate. So long as the first estate is mindful of the needs of the second estate, and natural law in general, leftism is minimized.
In Darwinian terms, the masculine right is clearly K-selected, and possess Nietzschean master morality; that is the morality of a sovereign (which really upsets the left). Nietzsche himself articulated in Beyond Good and Evil that some of the key traits of master morality are an honor for what one sees in himself, for one’s hierarchical equals, for ancestors, and for tradition. Likewise, K-selected organisms are competitive, in-group oriented and have inegalitarian social structures (examples being large carnivorous mammals, as well as great apes).
I once considered Non-Aggression Principle libertarians to be completely r-selected, but given that competition is inevitable in markets, I would go to argue that they have a mix of r and K selection strategies, and likewise a mixture of master and slave moralities. (Nietzsche actually believed that this ‘mix’ of moralities was inevitable in most higher civilizations, and also a result the intermixture of aristocracy with commoners, more on this here). It’s fine, oftentimes even helpful, if these individuals are present in the realm, just so long as they are not the ones ruling over it.
The left, however, given its support for ‘gibsmedat’ as though there were infinite resources to go around is clearly r-selected. Likewise, the left resents the sovereign and any group of people who attempt to claim a hold on resources (which can range from land to a civilization, to even things like one’s own biological ethnicity) as property, leading to the slave morality so characteristic of the left. The most extreme manifestation of this is in the anarcho-communists and Antifa.
It should be noted that what is termed by Nietzsche as ‘slave morality’ clearly fits within what MBTI psychology calls ‘extraverted feeling’ (emotions and value judgements are sourced from without), whereas ‘master morality’ corresponds to what is termed as ‘introverted feeling’ (emotions and value judgements are sourced from within) by psychologists. These moral phenomena are not coincidences, they are merely opposing psychological functions.
Now back to the biology behind all this. It is common knowledge that Karl Marx thought that capitalism would give way to communism due to a revolution of the proletariat. I would agree that capitalism can give rise to far left ideologies, but not so much through a revolution of the proletariat. Rather, capitalism, particularly once the industrial revolution became widespread, provided an unprecedented abundance of resources which led a gradual increase in r-selection among Westerners during the modern era; this then caused the political ‘progression’ from aristocracy (K-selected, right) to Whiggism (liberal capitalism – r/K mixture), to the r-selected, far left-wing SJW cultural norms which are common in the present day West. N.B.: Capitalism also selects for the ‘socialized’ temperament in humans, often leading to, yes, socialism. I personally suspect the North Sea trade networks of the middle ages to have begun the process of creating the socialized, liberal, cosmopolitan mindset found in many NW Europeans as well as their North American white liberal analogs.
However, now the West is reaching its carrying capacity, so K-selection is on the horizon, which is evidenced by the fact that millennials are having sex at a later age than their forefathers (K selection delays sexualization); I myself am 20 years old and still haven’t done it yet. There are also right-wing movements (the Alt-Right and Generation Identity) which have gained traction among millennials. Likewise, there is important evidence that millennials are more conservative than previous generations were at their own age (article), which is just more evidence for increasing K-selection. Gnon wins.
There are essentially three different ways in which modern states have kept their traditional identities intact: Islamofascism, Empire, and Insular Nationalism. The national IQ scores which I mention in this article are from this website (yes, it’s Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s data; if you have any criticisms of it, please cite an alternative source).
Islamofascism (bad idea)
Islam provides rules and virtues for people with limited intelligence to observe and daily rituals to enforce them – although this is a false promise since it achieves the opposite. – Curt Doolittle
Islamofascism is the strategy of the nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa who have an average IQ in the 80’s to retain their traditional identities in the present day. It usually involves persecution of religious minorities, polygamy, marrying women at an age most Westerners would find too young, either executing or imprisoning homosexuals (which even Christians should admit is excessive), as well as a general desire to violently conquer new territory by reason of a superstition (and then either execute, or heavily tax people who refuse to convert to the superstition).
This form of government today is favored in the West by the most unintelligent members of the extreme right and extreme left who often advise genocides of Jews, Whites, or the mass murder of gays, and so on. This is not a form of government which any intelligent person living in the present day can take seriously — there is a reason why it only exists in the present (information age) in nations with an average IQ below ~90. It is definitely not something to emulate; it is fundamentally non-Western, and though it has at times cropped up in the West (mostly in the Middle Ages), it is best left in the dustbin containing the more ugly bits of our history.
This form of government is not unique to the Middle East, however, I suspect that it likely originated there. Charlemagne seems to have emulated it when he butchered the pagan Saxons whom he conquered between 782 and 785 AD. Eventually, Charlemagne’s successors would realize that Islamofascism doesn’t work in the long run; this is where the next strategy comes into play: empire.
Empire is a very old form of government which was really first mastered by the Persians with their bureaucracy of satraps. It was later adopted by Alexander the Great of Macedon, then by the Romans. During the Middle Ages, it took shape in the Byzantine, Holy Roman and Angevin Empires. In the early modern period, there was, of course, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Spanish Empire, and in the later part of the modern era, the British Empire reached its peak. Today this form of government is roughly present in Russia and China, and perhaps to a certain degree the Trumpian United States. In all these empires, there is power granted to lower positions of authority underneath of the emperor or king who happens to manage the entire empire, thus various tribes and ethnic groups are usually allowed to have rulership from their own king or local vassal. Because of the multiethnic and multicultural nature of empire, there is a necessity for the emperor to tolerate the decisions of various kingdoms or tribes to adhere to their own religious opinions. The wisest imperial rulers understood this well, from Cyrus the Great of Persia to the Roman Emperors, and even the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who tolerated the decision of some of his dependent states to turn Lutheran. It is also understood by the Eastern Orthodox leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who must tolerate the folk-ways of all the various tribes who inhabit their own individual republics within his large domain. Regarding the IQ of empires, in the present day, most of them fairly high such as in Russia (97) and China (105).
I have noticed that among reactionaries, it is usually the Catholics who favor empire. There is nothing wrong with this, but it must be accepted that any empire, due to its large territorial expanse, will inevitably include various religious groups who must be treated in a dignified manner. Failing to do this will place any such state closer to the realm of Islamofascism, and I sincerely think that you are all more decent people than to create an Islamofascist style state.
Another interesting note is that Nietzsche seemed to have favored a pan-European empire over nationalism. This, I think, may be due to his extensive study of the classics, and possibly a romantic idealism he possessed regarding the Roman Empire. Brett Stevens seems to have followed suit in his promotion of pan-nationalism.
The European Union is essentially a perversion of the Roman Empire. It has sought the ethnolysis of Europe. The lesson learned here: empires must have good leaders, or else they become death traps.
There are of course certain advantages to empire, it gives a way for small groups of people and kingdoms to unite for common defence, and it is a way of reconciling traditionalism and hierarchy with a multiethnic domain — that being said it can be hard to create and control — all of its members must be willing to live under one roof — something which I do not believe will ever happen in the US as long was we have a large population of angry leftists. I should also mention that it is usually, if not always, because of the conflicting interests of various ethnocultural groups that an empire falls apart; it is almost an inevitable part of the lifecycle of an empire as the ruled come to resent the rulers due to a lack of shared identity. In fact, a good analogy of an empire might be to compare it to a heavy, radioactive atomic nucleus which can fissure under the right conditions. So if one seeks a more internally stable model of government than empire, that of the insular nation state (which can be monarchical) should be examined.
Nationalism, contrary to what some would claim, did not originate with Hussites and is not an inherently left-wing form of government. In fact, the concept of an insular nation state is probably the first concept of a nation-state in the West, beginning with the Greek polis, and the early Roman state. It was for the sake of the independent nation, and against subjugation under an empire, that king Leonidas and the 300 Spartans bravely fought the Persians at Thermopylae. It is, in more modern times, what inspired Irish nationalists to break away from the British Empire and create a nation centered around their own culture and religion. The fundamental feature of this type of government is that it maintains the identity one ethnic group with a single culture, and usually rules only the territory in which this ethnic group lives. The culture and ethnic group of the state’s inhabitants are preserved through very strict immigration laws — cucking is rare compared to in the modern ‘West’.
Among reactionaries, I have observed that the insular nationalist approach is taken by Orthodox Christians and Protestants, as well as polytheists, Cosmotheists, and irreligious individuals. I think that the desire for an independent nation-state that was likely one of the main reasons behind the split of Eastern Europe away from the Catholic church in 1054, as well as the decision of many Northern-European countries to break with Rome during the reformation. These nations perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) the Catholic Church to be too internationalist; that it violated their national sovereignty, so they created their own national churches, which were usually in communion with each other through either an Eastern Orthodox communion or a Protestant communion of Anglican and/or Lutheran churches.
In the present day, there are some notable well-developed nations which follow the model of insular nationalism to keep their traditional ethnic and cultural identities afloat, and they are also nations with some of the highest average IQ’s in the world: Iceland (101), Japan (105), South Korea (106), and Hong Kong (108). Consequently, I am not inclined to believe that ethnocentric nationalism is simply an ideology of “stupid rednecks”. As the description insular nationalism implies, most of these nations are islands; some of them are areas of continental land close to the sea. This was also true of early insular nationalist states such as various Greek city-states, and the early Roman state.
Generally speaking, these states are quite technologically advanced. Their insular, mono-ethnic, monocultural status creates a sense of ethnocultural safety and stability which allows individuals to focus on the advancement of science and technology (which also increases IQ via the Flynn effect). In other words, people can pursue science because they aren’t spending all their time and energy desperately trying to keep their identity intact through culture wars; the state keeps the identity of the people intact for them through strict immigration laws, and sometimes a traditional national religion. There is an advantage over empire here indeed; there is a sense of unified identity, of power, of making one’s own rules as a people; this leads to a stronger sense of pride in one’s nation than an empire can probably ever have as a whole.
Individuals who wish to revive the West must do so in a sincerely Western manner. Islamofascism, an ideology of certain low-IQ non-Westerners will not due. Thus a decision needs to be made in various instances between the formation of a multi-national empire and an insular nation state. Different strategies will work for different people and will have different results. When considering realistic political objectives, I would rather live in an insular ethnic nation state than an empire, but I am also aware that some sort of pan-national empire may be necessary for defense purposes. In a romanticist mindset, I am also aware that empire may provide an important opportunity to politically reunite European-Americans living in the US and Latin America with their homelands in Europe, something I would be in favor of, but Europe has to get fixed though before this can happen.
Davidski, the author of the Eurogenes blog has recently brought up an interesting genetic study regarding the ancestral origins of non-native Americans (non-Amerindian peoples living in North America).
It has been a habit of mine to mention the elves of Tolkien’s literary corpus as an aristocratic nobility of the second estate. One might ask, however, why would I choose such androgynous looking beings to be an embodiment of the clearly masculine warrior/aristocratic class. For starters, elves are wicked at fighting, and Tolkien clearly drew inspiration for his elves from the mythic aristocracies of super-humans such as the Celtic Tuatha Dé Danann and Norse alfar (source). The elves are also more resistant than men are to the dark powers of the ring.
The elf ultimately represents a higher type of humanoid being, being naturally immortal, aesthetically beautiful, not prone to disease, and possessing great keenness of the senses and wisdom. As I have stated in earlier posts, the higher type of man, the Overman, is ultimately the product of an aristocratic society; as Nietzsche puts it “EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be …” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 257). The mechanism by which this occurs is something which I will explain at the end of this essay, but first, let us review r/K selection theory in order to understand the evolution of the higher man — the elf.
r/K selection theory is something which many in the dissident right are aware of. r-selection occurs in an environment where resources are plentiful, but survival is not guaranteed due to the unpredictable forces of nature and predators; this is characteristic of tropical, and often subtropical environments such as coral reefs, rain forests, and warm floodplains and swamps. There is no advantage given to in-group cooperation, or high investment parenting in these environments, because offspring may easily die young, and no group cooperation is needed to secure resources to survive. Consequently, an r-selected species takes an evolutionary strategy of reproducing at a young age, and producing many, many offspring with little energy investment; this maximizes quantity over quality in the offspring. This strategy is suitable for organisms with a very short lifespan; it requires early sexualization of the young, and high promiscuity. This is the strategy of lower, simpler life forms –frogs, fish, most invertebrate animals, and protozoans. I would also add that this is the type of selection which would have been favored in Neolithic agricultural human populations living around river valleys. While these areas provided abundant food for humans, massive floods and droughts periodically wiped out vast numbers of people, thus r-selection was favored here because while many offspring could easily be supported, many could easily die off due to uncontrollable events.
Contrarily, K-selection occurs where resources are limited but the environment is stable, such as a dry or cold grassland or boreal forest, or perhaps a desert; this is where high investment parenting pays off, and discipline and in-group cooperation are necessary to secure resources and survive. A K-selected organism will begin reproducing at a later age, and produce fewer offspring; this maximizes quality over quantity. This is the strategy of organisms with a longer lifespan; it requires late sexualization of the young, and the reproduction tends towards monogamy and high energy investment in offspring; thus favoring quality over quantity in the offspring. This is the strategy of higher, more complex life forms; elephants, humans, great apes, and carnivorous mammals. In human populations, this type of selection would have occurred in upland hunter-gatherer societies where food was limited and required group cooperation to secure, but natural disasters such as floods were rare. So while fewer offspring could be supported in these hunter-gatherer societies, they were more likely to survive, and thus quality could be prioritized over quantity in reproductive terms, hence supporting K-selection.
In an older article I wrote on the biological origins of higher civilizations, I concluded that higher civilizations originate where evolutionary strategies from both Neolithic farmers and Paleolithic hunter-gatherers occur, such as (in the present day) Northwestern Europe and Japan; this is because of the convergence of r (Neolithic) and K (Paleolithic) evolutionary strategies which give society both willful assertive leaders and pacified obedient followers. This generally fits the Nietzschean theory on the origin of higher civilizations, which states that these civilizations originate from the phenomena of barbarians, with an unbroken will (K-selected; paleolithic strategy), dominating more peaceful human populations (r-selected, Neolithic strategy). I explore all this in more depth in the article I link to above.
Now back to the main point of this discussion: what characteristics of the elves identify them as being K-selected organisms? Well, I ran across a rather amusing article regarding What Tolkien Officially Said About Elf Sex. According to this website, Tolkien’s elves have a long pregnancy term compared to humans, 12 months, and this is clearly a high energy investment in individual offspring, biologically speaking. Elves also weren’t prone to have large numbers of children because their sex drive declined after procreation. Elves had extremely long lifespans; they were, of course naturally immortal. The elves also were highly monogamous; any kind of sex was a de facto marriage rite, and the elves never committed adultery. Elves did not complete their childhood and adolescence until they were 50 years old, which is much older than the human age of ~15-20 years old, at which point they were fully sexualized and began to look for a mate. The elves also possess the K-selected trait of being highly altruistic towards their own in-group (often a clan such as the Noldor and Teleri); this is an important trait for an aristocrat charged with protecting his domain from parasites. Elves also retained the physical form of their youth their entire lives and were thus neotenous. Neoteny is a characteristic of more highly evolved hominids; it is what grants humans the smaller maxilla and mandible in comparison to the rest of the cranium (it’s one reason we don’t look like our ape ancestors). Certain human races (collective phenotypes) are also more neotenous than others, but elaborating on this in the context of what I have just said would be equivalent to sparking a powder keg! My point here regarding the elven trait of neoteny is that it shows their more highly evolved biological state than ordinary humans. So, in summary, Tolkien, in his elves, described for us a highly K-selected, more highly evolved type of man; a biological aristocrat, and as we shall see in the paragraphs below, an Ubermensch or Superman, similar to what Fredrich Nietzsche speaks of in Thus Spake Zarathustra.
There are more than K-selected traits of the elves which show their status of the as superhuman creatures. The spiritual characteristics of the elves also bear resemblance to those of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch or Superman. Now let’s see Nietzsche explicitly introduce his concept of the Superman in both evolutionary and spiritual terms.
And Zarathustra spake thus unto the people:
I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?
All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?
What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.
Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.
Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?
Lo, I teach you the Superman!
The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!
In the above passages, you can see Nietzsche’s emphasis on the body, that it is not to be despised, and in order to arrive at the Superman or Ubermensch, it is necessary to be accepting of the body, and of life, because the Superman, as we saw before, is the meaning of the earth, the physical realm. This also agrees with the concept of the Tolkienian elf being a type of Superman, as an elf who dies do not go to some unknown spiritual plane, as the souls of men, but their soul (fëar) is bound to Arda (earth) (source). If an elven soul so chooses it may go to the halls of Mandos, located on the continent of Aman, and may be reincarnated into a body (hröar) identical to the old one. So the elf, like the Superman of Nietzsche is an earthbound creature. Of equal importance, the perfect and healthy body, represented in Tolkien’s elves (who are not prone to disease, physical flaws, and aging as men are) preaches of the meaning of the earth, just as the Superman described by Nietzsche’s character Zarathustra. There are other characteristics which the elves share with Nietzsche’s Overman, particularly their role as creators of values, which I discuss in my article The Ubermensch as an Archetype; this aspect of elven personality is particularly pronounced in the examples of Fingolfin, Feanor, and Thranduil. Therefore, in summary, the elf is essentially an icon of the Superman (I borrowed this use of the word “icon” from the commenter pseudo-Chrysostom). As an image of higher man, the elf encourages the striving of man towards higher man, just as an icon of a saint encourages a theosis towards sainthood for the devoted Orthodox Christian.
Now, the passages I have presented from Thus Spake Zarathustra bring up the issue of the immortality of the soul. Nietzsche did not believe in the immortality of the soul, but, as we have seen, Tolkien is able to synthesize the concept of the earth-bound Superman and the immortal soul in the elf. This is what many early religions (Indo-European polytheism, the Israelite religion etc.) did before Christianity and Islam with their concepts of heaven came about. In these earlier religions, the soul was simply assumed to be bound to the physical realm, and went to Sheol or Hades after death; in some religions, the soul might reincarnate into a new earthly body, just as certain elves are able to do in Tolkien’s universe.
So, as we have seen, the disparity between Tolkien and Nietzsche is smaller than many would think. I believe this is because we all internally know, you, me, Nietzsche and Tolkien, what the characteristics of higher man are; we know deep inside, what we are to evolve into, and it is necessary that we have an intuitive drive to evolve into higher life forms in order for the Cosmos itself to evolve (this is the basis of the panentheistic religion of Cosmotheism). This drive towards the Ubermensch seems almost like something placed within us by a divinity, and it is stronger in some individuals than others. I could claim that those with more of this drive are the elect of the divine presence permeating the universe (perhaps I am inclined to believe in an esoteric Calvinism as a nod to my puritan ancestors, even though their iconoclastic values screwed up the United States). This election is different from an Abrahamic covenant in that it does not involve a conversion or affirmation of faith; it is something deeper and more naturally present in the individual which he or she may not even consciously realize is there.Thus the answer to the following question should be clear: if I seek to be a Nietzschean creator of values, an Ubermensch, then why do I require the metaphysical system of Cosmotheism to justify my values? The answer is that I do not require a metaphysical system to justify my values — I already valued the beauty and intricate complexity of life and the Universe before learning about Cosmotheism. Cosmotheism articulated these values so clearly and completely that I choose to describe myself as a Cosmotheist.
Cosmotheism was also agreeable to me because it carries no necessary conflict with polytheism; the various forces and gods which one might believe to inhabit the Cosmos are ultimately just parts of the Cosmos just as we are, but only the Cosmos, the Whole is the original Creator. It is a religion in which one’s ethics are centred around completing the great sacrament we call life for the sake of the evolution of the Cosmos; from eating, to exercising, to choosing a mate, and having sex, to becoming a teacher and mentor for the young when one is old and experienced at life. As a codified religion, it is, in my opinion, perhaps the most practical solution to nihilism for those who are unable to become creators of values themselves.
Now returning to the drive towards an Ubermensch which is ultimately part of the will of the Creator towards cosmic evolution, The Anonymous Conservative seems to have a similar realization that I do which he describes in Chapter Twenty Six — What is K? — of The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics:
In the end, K is something programmed into the computer code of the universe — a fundamental fore integral to the world, and designed to arise spontaneously, due to the designed nature of it. Once arisen, it guides the evolution of every self sufficient organism’s form and function. K may even be the fundamental force really driving the universe’s organizaiton, if not the underlying purpose of thhe entire Creation. In its most basic form, K is about the fostering of a specific quality within the Universe’s organization. The quality can be loosely be described as “greatness,” – encompassing such variables as complexity, ability, resiliency, sophistication, creativity, adaptability, etc.
If one examines the world around them, they will quickly come to the realization that, over the long haul, it favors K innately, and that this is likely an engineered design. God does not want to crack the hood on His Creation, only to look out upon a Universe of a worlds that all look like the world in the movie Idiocracy, filled with imbeciles denigrating the lone eloquent smart person. Indeed, were the universe designed to favor r, evolution would never have even made it that far. All God would see in a perpetually r-universe would be ever more rapidly expanding blobs of goo, each unit of goo competing fiercely with the others, to see which can expend less energy on greatness and complexity, to focus on repoducing more of an ever less-evolved goo.
— The Anonymous Conservative, Chapter Twenty Six — What is K? — , The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics
So now when we speak of a “eugenic” goal, if we are to have one, we see that is its the goal that the Cosmos already has; there is no need to wander in the dark, or to simply pick a single man-made quantitative parameter such as IQ (which eventually results in Ashkenazi Jewish supremacism), because K-selection is essentially what drives the evolution of the Cosmos into something more complex and beautiful.
How is K-selection accomplished in the present day? We already have the resource limitation provided by overpopulation, but we also need to create stable environments where an evolutionary strategy to produce fewer offspring of higher quality is successful in the long-term due to a lack of predators (so-to-speak). This requires the creation of what we call civilization, which must include a wise and noble aristocracy for its preservation against invaders and deceitful parasites. The Hestia Society is in a sense correct in saying “The only morality is civilization”. Civilization creates an environment where, when fewer offspring are produced, but of higher quality and complexity, they will ultimately survive, reproduce, and pass on their highly evolved phenotypes to the next generation. Where the civilization is ethnocentric this evolutionary process is able to occur without corruption and uncontrolled genetic dilution. And is not the refinement of civilization what the true right is aiming for? Yes, it is, and now you see that our purpose which we will is ultimately the purpose of the Cosmos which drives the higher evolution of the Cosmos. We are the elect of the Cosmos. Those who attempt to destroy us and our purpose are reprobate.
But what happens when the Cosmos destroys itself, and these highly evolved life forms with it, when the sun dies, the earth perishes, and our galaxy and many others are swallowed up in a black hole? Well, now you see the dionysian side of the Creator which complements the apollonian side. There is beauty in impermanence. This is understood well in Buddhism and the derived Japanese aesthetic of Wabi-Sabi. It is also expressed in Nietzsche’s idea of an aesthetic justification of life which is embodied in Greek tragedy. As a destroyer of value, Time is dead — we have killed him.
Postscript: why the consequential low birthrates of K-selection are not necessarily bad:
I first learned about the naturalistic fallacy (an is is not an ought) in a philosophy course I took recently in which we studied David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (which should also probably be a favorite among the HBD crowd). The naturalistic fallacy is probably one of the main advantages which progressives have over conservatives, as it gives them an excuse to destabilize society by changing the demographic and cultural status quo from what is naturally desired, homogeneity, to what is more “progressive”, “diversity”. However, we must remember that the logical framework which we are working with is largely a creature of the Whig/liberal academic establishment. I would like to propose a new fallacy: A can is not a should; this is the progressive fallacy. Perhaps using more formal language it could be called the potentiality fallacy, or the fallacy of potentiality. The essence of this fallacy is the equation of potentiality with value. If anyone else has articulated this fallacy before, I would like to know, as I would be somewhat surprised if I were the first one to do so. Maybe this new fallacy will help solve the problem of the leftward ratchet and Cthulhu always swimming left.
An exemplary application: just because you can create a cosmopolitan society of atomized individuals, does not mean that you should.
Or, perhaps more controversially: just because you can genetically engineer humans (or any other organism for that matter) does not mean that you should.
On the Metaphysics of Anti-Naturalistic Thought
I highly suspect that the idea that natural desires are evil, or must be beaten down, has its origins in various ascetical, anti-naturalistic, ways of approaching life. One must admit that there was a massive increase in asceticism in the West with the introduction of Christianity. In any case, anti-naturalistic thought seems to have a basis in life-denying, world-denying religions, the most extreme of which is Gnosticism. Nietzsche countered this anti-naturalistic tendency by arguing that the Overman is one who is able to accept his natural desires and emotions and use them towards constructive ends (source). It is, therefore, interesting that the liberal secularist website Rational Wiki has a somewhat positive view of Nietzsche, and yet it is infested with SJWs who hate the natural emotional desire of Europeans and European Americans to live among their own people and form their own ethnostates. The wisdom which Nietzsche expresses here regarding natural drives is nothing new and seems to echo what I have researched regarding the chakras. This is because it implies that one must first accept and hone the ‘lower’, more ‘irrational’, corporeal drives of one’s self (rather than ignoring or suppressing them) in order to master one’s higher powers, such as the intellect, and spiritual consciousness. See this very good article on the chakras for more information (use Google translate; it’s in Spanish).
In summary: a rootless tree falls. Natural ‘irrational’ desires and emotions are not inherently bad, nor are the traditionalism and romanticism which are based in them, as these are what ultimately keep us grounded and provide a solid foundation for the more mutable aspects of our existence.
One way of portraying Nietzsche’s Overman/Superman/Ubermensch:
In this post, I am publishing a theory that I have regarding the morality of the villains presented in Tolkien’s novels. Though many villains exist throughout his corpus — dragons, orcs, ungoliants, Suaraman, balrogs, and more — I will be focusing on the main two: Melkor and Sauron. Please note that what I am publishing here is at best a theory, I am not an experienced Nietzsche scholar, though I do find his writings enlightening. It should be remembered, not only for this post but all of mine, that my theories are not usually born perfect, and are almost necessarily modified over a period of time for their improvement. This post will also contain mild criticism of Abrahamic religion in general due to its efforts to create a ‘universal tribe’.
I may have displeased some social conservatives with my lack of enthusiasm for talking about family values in previous posts. And to be fair, placing these values before all else is a mistake of religious dogmatists. Nevertheless, the traditional family is clearly an asset because it minimises the wasteful use of resources towards purely vain hedonistic ends. It is by means of the traditional family that an aristocracy is established, and it is by means of the traditional family that it is preserved through efficient reproduction and childrearing, and its power is not diminished through wasteful polyamorous spending. This is ultimately why certain leftists dislike the traditional (monogamous, heterosexual) family. To them it represents power, and because the position of the left is essentially derived from slave morality, a morality centered around demonizing the powerful and all their attributes, it should not come as a surprise that much of the left hates, or rather fears, the traditional family, and may even go so far as to call it “oppressive”.
The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; he has a skepticism and distrust, a REFINEMENT of distrust of everything “good” that is there honoured–he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness there is not genuine. … Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis “good” and “evil”:–power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the “evil” man arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the “good” man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being. –Fredrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil Chapter IX, paragraph 260 (emphasis mine)
It is ultimately the Will to Power, the intuitive genetic self-interest, as Butch Leghorn calls it, of the left, which is driving the left against the traditional family, and it is ultimately the Will to Power of the right which is driving us to keep it intact, and further, to promote it as an ideal, contrary to a life of consisting of endless masturbation, pornography viewing, and one-night stands. Now it should be obvious why a certain *ahem* small section of our society promotes such a libertine lifestyle. Yes, I think you know who I am speaking of. If I told you outright who they were the SPLC would try to ruin my life. The traditional family is in their way. It limits their power. It makes us more difficult to exploit financially and otherwise, and it makes us more likely to organise a long-lasting opposition to their power. Therefore, their Will to Power encourages them to destroy the traditional family.
Now, it is said that monogamous reproduction is a characteristic of a K, rather than an r evolutionary reproductive strategy (The Anonymous Conservative), and this is ultimately the biological basis for these opposing Wills to Power. It is the master versus the slave, in Nietzschean terms, that respectively corresponds to the K versus the r in biological terms.
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.