Thanks for the great read. It's all a black pill - certainly for anyone who has looked at the numbers. All that said, the white pill would be that there are quite a lot of folks of differing racial and ethnic backgrounds who are establishing enclaves for their own tribes. Whites are part of this trend. Now, are Ozarkia, Orania, Return to the Land, Australian European Movement, the agricultural co-op (that's all White) down the road - are these solid tribes - or tribes full of factions? I think with Whites it is likely the latter, almost always. We are profoundly more individualistic than other peoples. It is both a strength and a weakness. *The way to make the tribe the foundation factions are always subservient to is via a deep shared mythos - and the agreement White unity, always. No matter the cost.
Christ taught his followers to be in the [dominant tribe] but not of the [dominant tribe].” Maybe this is a model path forward - groups with radically different norms but reasonable enough to accept and build upon what is good of the current state.
>We hate groups who disagree with world elite consensus on school, medicine, democracy, gender equality, sexual freedom, legal due process, rules of just war, and norms of good parenting.
Yeah, "we" overwhelmingly hate those loathsome reprobates, and yet Trump, whose main selling point is that he ostentatiously defies elite consensus, somehow got elected twice. I think that you overestimate the dominant culture - its nominal leaders have no vision, strategy, or plan to speak of. Instead, they tend to follow the lead of campus activists, who are driven by passionate whims of the moment, and so the prestige/influence cachet gets squandered in senseless purity crusades, while the reactionary populist tide keeps rising. The collapse and fragmentation may just happen much sooner than you hope for...
Thinking along similar lines - my proposal is we create a common ethical language or protocol focusing on chosen bounded circles of personal and institutional primary moral responsibility- a modernized conception of the term "heirs":
If you work through the logic in my proposed moral primitive of life-years, then under non-zero probability of tribes/factions/heir-groups mixing/marrying over time, you're aligned *in the long but finite term with all non-ruinous groups*. E.g.In the simple case, if you have descendants far enough into the future, they will overlap will all of humanity in about 3000 years (depending on how much they migrate, etc), and similarly for anyone else whose heirs are similarly successful.
Thanks for the great read. It's all a black pill - certainly for anyone who has looked at the numbers. All that said, the white pill would be that there are quite a lot of folks of differing racial and ethnic backgrounds who are establishing enclaves for their own tribes. Whites are part of this trend. Now, are Ozarkia, Orania, Return to the Land, Australian European Movement, the agricultural co-op (that's all White) down the road - are these solid tribes - or tribes full of factions? I think with Whites it is likely the latter, almost always. We are profoundly more individualistic than other peoples. It is both a strength and a weakness. *The way to make the tribe the foundation factions are always subservient to is via a deep shared mythos - and the agreement White unity, always. No matter the cost.
"Our dominant world culture hates tribes, but loves factions".
This one sentence was sufficient for a "like" from me.
Christ taught his followers to be in the [dominant tribe] but not of the [dominant tribe].” Maybe this is a model path forward - groups with radically different norms but reasonable enough to accept and build upon what is good of the current state.
>We hate groups who disagree with world elite consensus on school, medicine, democracy, gender equality, sexual freedom, legal due process, rules of just war, and norms of good parenting.
Yeah, "we" overwhelmingly hate those loathsome reprobates, and yet Trump, whose main selling point is that he ostentatiously defies elite consensus, somehow got elected twice. I think that you overestimate the dominant culture - its nominal leaders have no vision, strategy, or plan to speak of. Instead, they tend to follow the lead of campus activists, who are driven by passionate whims of the moment, and so the prestige/influence cachet gets squandered in senseless purity crusades, while the reactionary populist tide keeps rising. The collapse and fragmentation may just happen much sooner than you hope for...
I'm confused, is your baseline prediction that Western civ will be replaced by watered-down global-civ?
Or that, by becoming a monoculture, we'll have a fragile global-civ which will collapse (those damn amish hordes)?
Our population will decline, causing our economy to decline. Amish/Haredim double every 20yrs, eventually dominating.
Thinking along similar lines - my proposal is we create a common ethical language or protocol focusing on chosen bounded circles of personal and institutional primary moral responsibility- a modernized conception of the term "heirs":
https://pragmaticfutures.substack.com/p/heirs-of-life-years-a-meta-ethics
If you work through the logic in my proposed moral primitive of life-years, then under non-zero probability of tribes/factions/heir-groups mixing/marrying over time, you're aligned *in the long but finite term with all non-ruinous groups*. E.g.In the simple case, if you have descendants far enough into the future, they will overlap will all of humanity in about 3000 years (depending on how much they migrate, etc), and similarly for anyone else whose heirs are similarly successful.