2014 June 05 Thursday
Asabiyya And Group Solidarity
The greatest irony of our era: The Left is most keen on asabiyya (approximately: sufficient group solidarity to pursue collective societal goals) because they want to achieve group goals. Yet the Left vigorously supports policies (e.g. immigration of other ethnic groups, a welfare state that undermines community bonds) that destroy it.
What they and we will get instead.
I've been coming across asabiya/asabiyyah/asabiyya (one of those Arab words with no consensus way to spell in our alphabet) in books I've been reading about the collapse of civilizations. What strikes me about it is that the concept predates the Arabs and its importance in maintaining a civilization's health and the elements needed to create it were more obvious to past thinkers than to intellectuals in our own era.
Today multi-cultists vigorously support policies and ways of thinking that undermine feelings of loyalty and trust. They seem to think they can just train everyone to have loyalties to the whole nation. But people naturally feel greater trust for those genetically closest to them.
By Randall Parker at 2014 June 05 11:09 PM
The British Conservative MP David Willetts has made exactly that argument, and itís been taken up by David Goodhart (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/27/why-left-wrong-mass-immigration).
A few years ago, oxytocin studies were all the rage. Leftists fell in love with oxytocin after studies showed a hit of it would make people more loving, trusting, compassionate and willing to sacrifice for others. They dubbed it the "love drug". Later studies confirmed this was true... but only for ones in group. See, it increased in group loyalty while simultaneously increasing ethnocentrism and hostility to out groups. Leftists can't wrap their head around the fact that evolution involves competition between groups as well as individuals. Anyone who fails to pursue their own interests either as an individual or as a group will be culled. That's why true empathy and compassion will always be linked with ingroup vs outgroup competition. Interestingly, studies also show that leftists rate very low on group loyalty. Even to the extent that some actually prefer strangers to their own family. Most of the readers here are a bright lot. So I'll leave it to them to think through the meaning and repercussions of this.
Given the direction of intellectual argument in Britain they might save themselves from much worse. But the US will not veer from its current disastrous course.
I've been reading a lot of books about lifecycles of empires and the causes of their decline. My reading has given me more peace of mind about the decline of America because it seems much more predestined than I'd previously believed. I no longer see it as something to fight over. The decline was always inevitable.
The decline in loyalty: It is the inevitable result of a dynamic that takes place in the imperial nation.
Exactly how long have I been saying people need to take Dawkins' Extended Phenotype paradigm seriously is hard to say since Google has relegated its Usenet archive to the memory hole in large measure.
Idiocy seems to prevail in the area of human eusociality -- and not just among the liberal elites, mind you. Even the race "realists" seem unable to fathom the possibility that eusociality is, as Nowak, et al have mathematically argued with due rigor, primarily extended phenotypic. Indeed, Dawkins himself seems unable to apply his own paradigm in his arguments against Nowak, et al.
If you follow that lead, a lot of such "idiocy" makes a lot more sense.
Let me offer a simple argument for why race "realists" are being unrealistic in their ignorance of extended phenotypic "altruism" of "whites" toward "non-whites":
Even Jews like Zimmerman are admitting that parasitic castration is a major feature of the natural world -- albeit limited to interspecies extended phenotypics.
I posit that extended phenotypic parasitic castration might be intraspecific and point to interethnic "absurdities" wherein vast populations of one ethnicity sacrifice their reproductive potential for vast populations of other ethnicities.
Is such intraspecific parasitic castration via extended phenotypics absurd? Why is it absurd? Is it absurd because members of the same species are too closely related to each other to support the evolution of such virtulent parasitism?
If that is the case, then it is even more absurd for Nowak, et al to posit that a mother parasitically castrates her offspring for her own benefit -- and that is exactly what Nowak, et al posit.
Is it absurd because members of other ethnicities don't get into a position where they can act as does the eusocial mother in parasitically castrating her brood?
Perhaps so if the species weren't so dependent on coevolved memes for reproductive viability -- but if a foreign ethny can interpose itself memetically between generations of a host ethny, is it really absurd to posit that an ethny might evolve the capacity to parasitically castrate host ethnies by specializing in the takeover of memetic programming of the impressionable via, say, religion (Jew don't have anything to do with JudeoChristianity do they?), media (Jews don't have anything to do with the media do they?) or academia (Jews don't have any substantial influence on academia do they?).
Perhaps it is absurd of me to argue this -- not because it isn't glaringly obviously the correct working hypothesis to adopt -- but because the vast majority are already so abjectly dominated by virulence that there is little hope they can read and comprehend the glaringly obvious.
Of course, humans have instinctive behaviors. But I think its problematic when attributing complex actions to instinctive behavior. Instinct certainly influences thoughts and action. But one would have a hard time getting everyone to carry out a complex, long term agenda based on a conscious manifestation of this instinct. Because people also have their own separate, competing interests. I think religion is about as close as one comes to a collective instinct.
But I'm doubtful that's what's taking place here for several reasons. First, the most religious jews are the most conservative and in tune with the group. They may not all like the majority but they're aligned with the majority nonetheless. It's the least religious who are the most Marxist and hostile to the majority. They're also the most likely to hold the views and engage in the behaviors which others allege they're 'brainwashing' the public with. So if they're poisoning others then they've swallowed it themselves. OTOH I've heard secular, conservative Jews (not entirely an oxymoron) blame leftward leanings on elite WASPs. In other words, they claim secular Jews are just following the elite WASP's lead.
I disagree with both. I think there's something about being wealthy and high status that makes one take a sharp tilt to the left. Elite WASPs and secular Jews are both leftist for the same reason. I've long believed that reason is that life is too easy for them. People need struggle and hardship to develop a healthy psychology. In fact, struggle and hardship actually affect the limbic system. Stress, fear, etc stimulates the amygdala to grow. And, of course, the amygdala is responsible for social understanding including stress and fear responses. Without that stimulation people never develop a healthy fear response. In other words, the lack of danger in their environment causes them to be ecologically naive. It should be obvious that upper and upper middle class would be the least likely to have their stress and fear responses stimulated.
I'm no fan of the guy in this video. Note how he emphasizes that the amygdala is primitive and a.c. cortex more recently evolved. It's a typical liberal bias that newer is always better. Therefore, more recently evolved must necessarily be better as well. I actually share the opposite bias. That the more primitive came first and is thus more primary and essential for survival. For example, the most primitive part of the brain is the brain stem. You can't live without it because that's what literally keeps you alive by making your heart beat and lungs breathe. So the more primitive parts are the foundation on which later parts depend for survival. Anyway, this guy still does a good job of explaining it even if he does kiss his own backside. It's very informative if you can see past his spin.
Destructure, we're not talking about individuals nor even groups of individuals here. We're talking about group selection's evolution of eusociality. Of course individuals defect from the group they're in. The point is that when group selection is at work, certain groups have less internal defection than others and they, therefore, win the evolutionary arms race. The complexity of behavior isn't pertinent. What is pertinent is the evolutionary incentives. Cognition is driven by deeper brain structures and is largely confabulation -- indeed is confabulation according to confabulation theory. You can construct elaborate cognitive structures around very simple incentives and they can manifest is an incomprehensible profusion of ideas and behaviors -- all with the same object and all without the individual involved having the slightest idea of what they themselves are doing.
I should emphasize that I agree that Jews are self-destructively buying their own material now. It didn't use to be the problem that it has become, however. At this point it appears Jews are hyper-parasitized by subsaharan Africans, but the mechanisms are different in that relationship. It is the intimate contact between Jews and Africans in the high population density urban centers that is now driving Jewish behavior -- a relationship that extends at least back to the slave trade and quite possibly clear back to the Dynastic Nubia.