Huntington vs Fukuyama

In 1992 esteemed economist Francis Fukuyama published a work of Progressive triumphalism, The End of History and the Last Man. Therein Fukuyama posited that man had reached the end of history, being “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” I am not trying to be unkind when I label this Progressive triumphalism, but there isn’t really any other way to take such a grandiose statement.

As a counterpoint, Samuel P. Huntington of the American Enterprise Institute offered his thesis, which later was published as a full-length book titled Clash of Civilizations. His thesis was that the happy Progressive Utopia had not arrived, and he pointed to the source of future conflicts:

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

Fukuyama believes that the greatness of the Progressive ideology has nearly brought about heaven on Earth. Huntington knows this is nonsense and points to culture as an indomitable force which no ideology can overcome. Huntington was close, but Doolittle is closer still.


Fukuyama and Huntington believe that ideologies and culture are nothing more than ideas, so if we can get everyone to think the same thoughts and share the same culture, then the conflicts will end. Are any of you thinking Orwell or New World Order right now? Among modern elites, the persistence of war within the international order is explained by the absence of a world police state, because such a police state could regulate the ideas that cause war.

One of Curt Doolittle’s key insights is that humans use language to justify their moral intuitions, and moral intuitions are the expression of reproductive strategy. Notice how Fukuyama and Huntington are both talking about ideas, but Doolittle is talking about genes (reproductive strategy). The moderns think that ideas are things that come out of the ether — mystically and magically. The idea is that humans use language to negotiate on behalf of their genes, and to defend the reproductive strategy that best suits those genes. So genes and their reproductive strategies come first, then they are translated into language to defend the reproductive strategy.

Following this line of logic, for Fukuyama’s assertion  to be true (that the ideology of Western liberal democracy was the final ideological endpoint of mankind), then it must be true that all mankind shares the same reproductive strategy. Otherwise, if there are groups of humans that engage in competing reproductive strategies, then those groups cannot share the same ideology. We know that humans do engage in various and competing reproductive strategies, which precludes ideological uniformity.

I don’t know if Huntington knew of Dual inheritance theory. This theory encapsulates the idea that genes and culture co-evolve. Humans enshrine the ideas that lead to good outcomes in their culture and also instill prohibitions against ideas that lead to bad outcomes. This culture then affects the population and sexual selection, which then shifts the frequency of genes in the population, which then shifts the culture, and so on. Had he known this theory, then he may not have relied solely on culture as the force that cannot be trumped by ideology, because culture itself is influenced by the genes (and the reproductive strategy of those genes) within a population. Still, he was closer than Fukuyama, who probably is unaware that there is even a connection between genes and ideology.

The truth is that political ideologies exist to perpetuate and justify group reproductive strategies. Each group, having slightly different reproductive strategies, will justify those strategies with political ideologies. The ideologies themselves should be seen as reflections of the reproductive strategy.

Each group uses a different interpretation of truth in order to justify its evolutionary strategy. The principle reason for Western exceptionalism is that we actually use Truth proper — what in philosophy is referred to as performative truth, or more correctly as Testimonial Truth: Testimony that corresponds with reality regardless of cost to us. We pay the very high cost of telling the truth as our principle contribution to the commons (tax). The result of testimonial truth is that we can rely upon the common law, judge and jury, which produces economic velocity by reducing risk, by reducing the time between invention of new means of free riding, and the evolution of the law against free riding; and by reducing the opportunity for parasitism (free riding) to gain a normative or institutional foothold. The second reason for Western exceptionalism is that we can, and did, evolve reason, logic and science as institutions. Truth telling is hard and expensive; It is the most expensive commons one can construct. That is why no one else has done it.

Wars will continue. There will continue to be not a clash of cultures, or civilizations, but of competing genetic interests. We Westerners must know ourselves. Only by truly understanding our reproductive strategy can we hope to defend it and perpetuate it, and our people. We have withstood a century of mysticism. It is time that we tell the truth again.

Note: This post was inspired by Curt Doolittle’s August 2014 post: Is Self-Deception Possible?

Propaganda Science – Ingroups and Outgroups

Much of what passes for science today will need to be erased. It will be necessary to either revise 100 years of mysticism dressed up as science, or excise it completely and start from scratch. Either way, there are a lot of corrections to make.

As an example of modern day pseudoscience, I place into evidence this wiki article on ingroups and outgroups. Let us now imagine that we are in a tribal region in the Middle East. There are multiple tribes which are tightly genetically related, as societies that practice cousin marriage are wont to produce.

For an enlightening discussion of the political ramifications of consanguinity, I place into evidence Steve Sailer’s Cousin Marriage Conundrum. In that 2003 article, Steve Sailer points out that American foreign policy with regards to nation building in Iraq, and the region in general, is completely ignorant of the facts on the ground with regard to the tribalism that consanguinity produces. He points out that tribalism precludes large corporate institutions (governments) from functioning. He points out that democracy cannot take root in such a tribal society. Fast forward to the end of the Iraq war and the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. Steve Sailer’s predictions have been born out to be true. While the mystical belief in democracy has been shown to be patently false. The mystical belief was that if the American government simply gave the Arabs a constitutional form of government, that it would take root and flourish, because all humans are equal and there is nothing special about the European peoples themselves which make Western forms of government possible. While American foreign policy appears to be scientific, it is nothing of the sort, because it is refuses to recognize the role that genetics plays in various populations, and that due to genetic drift, different populations are, well, different.

Cousin Marriage throughout the world

Cousin Marriage throughout the world

Let’s look a little closer at the summarizing paragraph at the top of the wiki article:

In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view themselves according to their race, culture, gender, age, or religion. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.[…] The significance of ingroup and outgroup categorization was identified using a method called the minimal group paradigm. Tajfel and colleagues found that people can form self-preferencing ingroups within a matter of minutes and that such groups can form even on the basis of seemingly trivial characteristics, such as preferences for certain paintings.

Oh, so ingroups are psychological identifications, and ingroups form even on trivial characteristics. Does it seem that this wiki article is forgetting something? It neglects that ingroups form primarily on genetic relatedness. It clearly states that ingroups are merely a psychological identification, often based on trivial characteristics. This is a pseudoscientific view, one that attempts to push the enlightenment narrative.

A scientific view of the situation would be like Steve Sailer’s. It would take into account that close genetic distance creates bonds between groups of humans, and that it simultaneously has a polarizing effect on groups of humans which do not share the close genetic distance. In short, it would take into account that there are ingroups and outgroups. The ingroups trust themselves only, and they mistrust anyone in the outgroup. The reason why is perfectly clear: because groups of genes which are different are competing in a world of limited resources to be able to propagate themselves. This is the default throughout much of the world. The Northwest European peoples are different, they are outbred. The Arab peoples are inbred. Outbreeding spreads ingroup trust to everyone. Inbreeding creates tribes. Outbred polities can create high-trust systems and create common institutions, like markets and governments. Inbred polities (tribes) do not trust each other enough to do business with the neighboring tribes, and they definitely do not trust the neighboring tribes to run their common government. The failure of democracy in Arabia is explained very via genetics and the evolutionary psychology of trust.

At the bottom, a grudging nod to reality appears in the Postulated role in human evolution section. Postulated, mind you.

In evolutionary psychology, ingroup favoritism is seen as an evolved mechanism selected for the advantages of coalition affiliation. It has been argued that characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are inflexible or even essential features of such systems. However, there is evidence that elements of favoritism are flexible in that they can be erased by changes in social categorization. One study in the field of behavioural genetics suggests that biological mechanisms may exist which favor a coexistence of both flexible and essentialist systems.

In summary, the nation-building exercise in Iraq was a spectacular failure. The post WWII order of nation states created by the Europeans in the Middle East is falling apart. The strong men supported by the West that were keeping disparate tribes organized into functional economic units have lost that support and were subsequently deposed or executed. Democracy has not taken root, instead tribal sectarianism has returned to the region without the a Western imperial power holding it together. The failure of democracy in the Middle East was predicted by Steve Sailer in 2003 based on his assessment of the effects of ingroup and outgroup behavior created by consanguineous marriage.

Yet, evolutionary psychology continues to be marginalized. How many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives have been wasted in the Iraq war alone, due to this persistent mystical belief in democracy and human equality? How much longer do we have to live in this age of mysticism, where the importance of genetics on our thinking, preferences, and norms are ignored?

The Most Profound 1,000 Words on Politics

The following is reprinted from Curt Doolittle’s facebook page. If you are not following him, you should.


1) All radicals do not fit into the center of the distribution – the statement is tautological, not insightful.

2) We all signal, and signaling is necessary for evolutionary reproductive selection.

3) The presumption of not fitting into some locus of the median of the distribution is a democratic one – that we are equal rather than (as I argue) we constitute a division of cognitive labor: perception, evaluation, knowledge and advocacy. (humans divide cognition more so than other creatures because we specialize in cognition.)

4) Our theories do tend to justify our social positions (signaling) but then, we would not have information necessary to theorize about any other set of interests, now would we?

5) The origin of theories is irrelevant (justification is false), and therefore the question of a theory produced by any subset of a polity can be judged by only criticism – its irrelevant who comes up with a theory.

The vast difference between pseudoscience and science in ethics, law, politics, and economics is captured those few words.

Now, to state the positive version: the solution to the fallacy of the enlightenment hypothesis of equality of ability, interest, and value is captured in these additional points:

6) economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

7) central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and transaction costs. Once centralized they can be incrementally eliminated. If and only if an institutional means of following rules can be used to replace personal judgement.

8) The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

9) Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

10) We cannot expect or demand truth from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

11) We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

12) Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group. The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons. The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption. But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons. Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time. Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well. The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot. Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.


Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute


Further comments from Curt:

Q: “With this is it safe to say that you have abandoned libertarianism?”

A: Well, does ‘libertarianism’ mean Rothbardianism, classical liberalism, or aristocratic egalitarianism? I think it means that I have abandoned the enlightenment, or perhaps, further reformed it away from pseudoscience and into science? I think it means that I have appropriated the application of the language of economics to morality in the misesian-rothbardian-hoppeian system. I think it means I retain the scientific (competitive innovative) bias common to those who see liberty as a means of competition – a group evolutionary strategy.

So I would consider myself a libertarian for those reasons.

I would consider my self a conservative because I advocate for networks of families maturing at different rates, rather than a universalist. And because I am certain that territory, institutions, and norms are more important than technological advancement in the long term. So I consider myself an aristocratic egalitarian, which is a libertarian predisposition. And as far as I understand it, that makes me a conservative libertarian rather than a social or religious conservative.

Q: “Please elaborate your (4)”

A: If indeed I am correct, and that we are genetically biased to reflect variations in moral spectrum according to our reproductive needs: both masculine-feminine(gender) and desirable-undesirable(class), and that as such we each only perceive and evaluate part of the moral spectrum, and that as such we divide the labor of cognition, and that voluntary cooperation is the means by which we calculate cooperative means. Then it is rational that each group that advocates for a particular part of the spectrum would produce philosophical justifications of their narrative — if and only if they lack the perception, knowledge, and bias to specialize in anything else but their region of the spectrum. So, as I have tried to show in Propertarian Class Theory, we develop specialists in each of these domains, and these specialists compete using their skills to move the population one way or another: Gossip(religion/shaming), Violence (law/threat), Trade (libertarian). This is a rich topic of exploration and I only started working on it seriously last fall. But it has a lot of legs: explanatory power.

Q: “Surely the law may be invented or created?”

A: Perhaps this is language, but do we create laws of nature or do we discover them? Do we crate means of suppressing parasitism, or do we discover them? I tend to see all our work in the law as reactive, and therefore we identify errors expressed in the common law the same way we identify science through criticism (failure). As such the common law is scientific. Or as close as many can make it.



Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage

I recently became aware of, and their Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. Please take a moment to read it. I have also reproduced it below.

In general, I support this effort. However, I do notice that the Pledge above is not a Christian defense, which would merely consist of quotes from the Bible and from respected Christian theologians and other Christian figures. A purely Biblical theological defense should be enough for any Christian. Instead of being a Christian defense, it consists of appeals to Natural Law and legalism with vague references to ‘faith’. There is no scientific basis to Natural Law, it is in itself a pseudo-scientific rationalization of an intuitive position. In short appeals to Natural Law are appeals to Faith. If is not going to provide a proper Christian defense and stand on Faith, then they are attempting to be logical and scientific. I am hoping that I may assist them in presenting a truly logical and scientific argument.

The intent of Propertarianism is to provide conservatives with a scientific language with which to defend their positions. Below is my short Propertarian version of the Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. It is based in the science of biology.

A Propertarian Pledge to Defend Marriage

We, the European peoples, are living creatures, and like all living creatures we struggle for Life. The struggle for Life requires that living beings pass genes forward through time via the process of sexual reproduction. Being members of a sexually dimorphic species, sexual reproduction among Homo Sapiens is a matter of cooperation between the sexes, who have competing sexual reproduction strategies. The human female’s reproductive strategy is to acquire the genes of the fittest males she can find, and then to offload the cost of child care onto her community or other less fit specimens who are willing to trade resources for access to sex. The human male’s reproductive strategy is to spread his genes to as many females as he can and provide as little resources to the resulting child care as possible. The above is an r-selected reproductive strategy of low investment parenting, intended to produce quantity and not quality of offspring, which can be observed in practice today among some orders of Homo Sapiens in more resource rich environments. The typical scenario is that of small subset of the fittest males (Alpha males, fighting specimens) impregnating many females and offering little to no child-care resources, while many Beta and lower males are completely denied access to reproduction. The females attempt to offload child-rearing costs onto their communities, and will tend to reproduce with multiple Alphas as long as resources are available.

Europeans developed a compromise between the competing reproductive strategies of the male and female and ensconced the rules and logic of this compromise in an institution called Marriage. In this compromise, only males who willingly bear the cost of raising their own children are allowed access to reproduction. Females are barred from shopping for better genes and may only reproduce with their marriage partner. This arrangement prevents monopolization of the females by the small Alpha male subset and allows access to reproduction to males not based on fighting ability, but on ability to engage in economic activity to produce resources for child-rearing. One consequence of this is a large and growing pool of males directed at economic production in order to gain access to sexual reproduction. Another consequence is that those males who are unable or unwilling to engage in economic production are excluded from sexual reproduction. This process of excluding those unable to plan and work for the future, while including those who can negotiate this future-orientation, results in what is known as a eugenic effect. This eugenic effect was observed throughout Europe in the Middle Ages as strict rules of Marriage were enforced by the Catholic church, and resulted in increasing average intelligence and work ethic in the European population, and a directly related increase in technological advancement and rising standards of living, reduction of human suffering, and expressions of human excellence in the arts. This eugenic process resulted in the Renaissance and the eventual global dominance of European technology and culture, converting Europeans from among the poorest on the planet to the richest.

Among Europeans, Marriage is an institution consisting of the universal requirement of lifelong pairing for access to sex and sexual reproduction (and the concomitant barring of all sexual union outside of matrimony), limiting the resulting children of those unions to a number which may be provided for by the couple alone without parasitism on the surrounding community, and to be disrupted only in the most dire of circumstances (limited divorce to as small a fraction as possible). Marriage itself is an institution controlling sexual reproduction, and any union which cannot produce fruit is therefore not Marriage. Marriage as an institution contains all rules affecting union and divorce, including all incentives and disincentives to maintain or disrupt a union.

The compromise between the sexes known as Marriage and pioneered to a universal standard by Europeans is a sociological technological innovation which has observably resulted in comparative competitive advantage for European populations. European civilization itself is a direct result of the fundamental institutional building block labeled Marriage. Defense of the institution of Marriage is a defense of European civilization itself, and is a defense of the most advantageous societal organization and reproductive strategy yet developed on the globe. Any attack on the institution of Marriage is an attack on European civilization and European peoples, their way of life and standard of living. Such attacks are no less than a matter of life and death and should be repelled by any means necessary. We, the European people, stand for Marriage and for our civilization, and we pledge to defend European civilization and the future of European civilization through our defense of the institution of Marriage. Woe to all who stand against us.

The Pledge

We stand together in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them. While we come from a variety of communities and hold differing faith perspectives, we are united in our common affirmation of marriage.

On the matter of marriage, we stand in solidarity. We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of Creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.

Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order. The Natural Law is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as a higher law or a just law in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage. Society begins with marriage and the family.

We pledge to stand together to defend  marriage for what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children.

The institutions of civil government should defend marriage and not seek to undermine it. Government has long regulated marriage for the true common good. Examples, such as the age of consent, demonstrate such a proper regulation to ensure the free and voluntary basis of the marriage bond. Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. No civil institution, including the United States Supreme Court or any court, has authority to redefine marriage.

As citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The effort to redefine marriage threatens the essential foundation of the family.

Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.

Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children. Such a policy statement is unconscionable and destructive. Authorizing the legal equivalency of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the fundamental rights of children and threatens their security, stability, and future.

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any court has authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the decisions of the Court are not based on the Constitution and reason, and especially if they are contrary to the natural created order, then the people will lose confidence in the Court as an objective arbiter of the law. If the people lose respect for the Court, the Court’s authority will be diminished.

The Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said, “blacks are inferior human beings.” And the Court was wrong when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell, “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” thus upholding Virginia’s eugenics law that permitted forced sterilization. Shamefully, that decision was cited during the Nuremburg trials to support the Nazi eugenic holocaust.

In these earlier cases, the definition of “human” was at issue. Now the definition of “marriage” is at issue. The Constitution does not grant a right to redefine marriage — which is nonsensical since marriage intrinsically involves a man and a woman. Nor does the Constitution prohibit states from affirming the natural created order of male and female joined together in marriage.

We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.

We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.