Darwinian Globalism
another wacky idea.
Robin Hanson traces our “post-modern moment” to the following thought process:
Darwinism, taken to its logical conclusion, produces Nazism.
Nazism is too destructive to permit.
Darwinism is undeniable.
Therefore, we must stop taking things to their logical conclusion entirely, to sever the link between Darwinism and Nazism.
He calls this “decoupling from logic” post-modernism. He mourns the loss of logic, and claims that this will destroy our progress, or at the least, lead to stagnation.
My solution is that, rather than fleeing from logic to escape the “inevitability of Nazism,” we must instead revive the prestige of logic by disproving the causal link.
I call this revival “Darwinian globalism.”
Racism failed as a concept because it lacked sufficient material power to attain victory. The destruction of the Reich at the hands of the American, British, and Soviet states, did not revert Germany to its Weimar democracy -- it transformed Germany into a post-racial state, ideologically speaking. The immigration that Germany now receives is a direct result of its new founding in 1946.
Nationalism as an idea was insufficient to grant Germany the necessary military victory it required to maintain its racial creed. If Darwinism is to resurrect anew, it must seek to adhere itself to a more formidable military power. That power is globalism.
What is primary, therefore, is not to seek out racism as it presently exists, as in the Trump movement. “Apparent racism” is superficial and has no deeper substance. Trump uses racism when convenient, and discards it when inconvenient. It is entirely irrelevant whether Trump is “closer” to Darwinism than Kamala Harris.
By embracing globalism, Darwinism weds itself to the most powerful military force in history. In doing so, it secures its victory. This is despite, and in contrast with, whatever demographic changes might occur. The belief of Nazis was that the loss of Germany in the Second World War would lead to the destruction of the Aryan race. This was a self-serving fiction with no basis in reality. Their concept of destiny was petty, small-minded, and nationalistic.
The Nazis denied Darwinian biology. If a Chihuahua breeds with a German Shepherd the resulting cross breed is an intermediate type. The Nazis imagined that the Aryan was supremely creative. They acknowledged, begrudgingly, that the Jew was mixed together with diverse origins. Insofar as the Jew is at least partially of Aryan stock, the Jew possesses a share of these supposed “creative powers.” But the Nazis denied this on dogmatic grounds. According to the Nazis, a Jew could not, ontologically, be creative. This is not a biological creed, but a magical one, based in the idea of the “one drop rule.”
What Darwinian globalism demands is the diffusion of types throughout the whole of humanity. “White genocide” is actually white supremacy. Mixing eliminates the possibility of white genes “going extinct” by safeguarding them in the DNA of every living human being. This is achieved naturally and requires no compulsion.
The conclusion of this process is not homogeneity, but a racial spectrum. In this spectrum, race asserts itself.
When race appears in discrete, binary categories, it becomes possible to beat the masses over the head with historical narratives. For example: the black man is poor because of historical oppression, whereas the Asian is rich because of cultural influences. But when a global culture eliminates petty historical and cultural distinctions, when history and culture are lost through intermixing, then the only explanation for human differences will be purely Darwinian. By eliminating culture and history, race emerges alone.
The Habsburg believes that he is superior on the basis of his lineage. At no point is his particular character or behavior brought under question -- that is entirely irrelevant. The aristocrat can sit passively, like a dragon around his coinage, and assert his superiority on the basis of some historical connection. This is an anti-Darwinian idea. Darwinism as an empirical reality requires observation, instantiation, and participation. This is brought into the sharpest contrast as a result of intermixing. The separation of the races obscures the nature of things.
It is considered “right-wing” to oppose rap music. Rap music is considered “black culture,” and if white people are exposed to “black culture,” then they will “degenerate” to the behavior of blacks. This is an anti-biological concept, because it asserts that the origins of behavior lie in environmental influences, rather than biological ones. The biological nature of things can only become apparent when both “white culture” and “black culture” are globalized.
The conservative blames “black crime” on “black culture.” As a redemptive salve, they offer classical music and Christian values. The inverse of this claim would be that, if white people listen to rap, they will become violent and amoral. Has this really occurred? Or are white liberals even more moralistic and pacifistic, as their consumptions of “black culture” has only increased?
I do not deny that environmental differences exist. I only deny that they *should* exist. I deny the segregation of the races. I hold up New York City and Oakland California as a dynamic power.
