Competition with no limits and no rules is the war of all against all, is predation, every other creature except for close kin being obstacles or raw materials. Humans organize so that competition is channeled into productive activities, rather than massively negative sum activities. But how do we organize this? This is what we call order, and political order is also order in the thermodynamic sense, in that a functional state of the social system, where competition produces excellence through cooperation is a very special case, and any random change is apt to be for the worse.
Where does this organization come from. Where does order come from?
Partly it comes from a ruler, but for a ruler to actually remake society, he has to have remarkably great power, which is apt to result in competition to be the ruler getting out of hand, as it did in the Roman Empire. In substantial part it comes from natural selection of social orders. A society where people cooperate effectively is apt to conquer and dominate other societies, much as a group of humans can predate upon a herd of cattle. Thus, for example, colonialism, outsiders come in, inject themselves at the top of the colonialized society’s social order, and remake that society in their own image, not necessarily killing all the men and enslaving all the women, quite likely creating greater prosperity and freedom for everyone, but rather more prosperity and freedom for themselves.
The better a society is at creating prosperity through orderly and productive competition, the more likely it is that its dominion is rather more civilized than killing all the men of the conquered society and taking their land and women. But there needs to be some substantial payoff for those imposing order. If no substantial payoff, drift to entropy is inevitable.
The population size estimated from Y chromosome diversity is smaller than the population size estimated from mitochondrial diversity, indicating that far more females than males reproduce – we are de-facto a substantially polygynous species.
About seven thousand years ago, during the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, this ratio went to extremes.
One possible explanation of this is that the local ruler owned all the land and owned all the women, thus only one male in seventeen got to reproduce. Another possible explanation is that women got to choose, and they chose one male in seventeen. But the bottleneck happened during the transition between hunter gathering and farming, hence connected to property rights and property rights enforcement, thus property rights enforcement in land, crops, cattle, and women.
Only the local ruler reproducing is unlikely to be stable. The other males will not fight for him. Thus a patrilineal group cooperating and fighting to enforce its property rights in cattle and women, as depicted in the book of Genesis. Genesis depicts Abraham’s patriarchal group warring with Kings with reasonable success. Books later in the series depict patriarchal groups helpless before Kings and armed religions.
The bottleneck can be explained by competition between patrilineal groups, so that the survival of one man’s Y chromosome is highly correlated with the survival of his kin in the paternal line, where one patrilineal group was apt to wipe out another patrilineal group and take their women. If you were a descendant of Genghis in the male line, you and all the other descendants of Genghis in the male line would work together to take the other men’s women and prevent other men from taking your women – which implies and presupposes that women got no say in this.
During the transition, need property rights in land, crops, and cattle.
Father’s brother’s daughter marriage ensures social cohesion on Y chromosome lines. Abraham’s property rights in cattle are secured by kinship relationships with people who share his Y chromosome.
Later, Kings matter more, patrilineal kin matter less, but if everyone secured property rights the way Abraham did, there would be a high correlation between Y chromosomes and reproductive success. Own stuff, have the same Y chromosome as other people owning stuff. Don’t own stuff, don’t reproduce.
In the book of Genesis, we see a bunch of wars in which patrilineal kinship groups fight kings as roughly equals. This environment could mean a much smaller effective population size for Y chromosome, since the population size would be number of property owning patrilineal groups, not number of individual males.
This does not necessarily manifest as outright conquest and abduction – just that you can feed women, and the guy without property rights cannot, and you can enforce your property right in women, and thus you want to feed your women and their children.
If enforcement comes from patrilineal groups, including enforcement of marriage, then a moderate disparity in willingness and ability to enforce property rights in women and children can result in a very large disparity in effective population size, because we are measuring not the number of successfully reproducing males compared to the number of successfully reproducing women, but the number of successfully reproducing patrilineal property rights enforcement groups compare to the number of successfully reproducing women.
Of course, we are still talking war between patrilineal groups but the war may fall short of killing all the men and taking all the women in one hit. But if a patrilineal group cannot defend its land and women, it is going to eradicated, possibly in a less sudden fashion.
The point is that one gets a reduction in effective male population size if genetic survival is correlated with one’s Y chromosome. Everyone you know is descended in the male line from your great great granddad. And if he is not, no one is stopping you from taking his cattle and his women, and killing any children encumbering those women. But this implies that you know who everyone’s dad is, which implies female sexuality is under male control – as depicted in the old testament in the time of patriarchs, where the penalty for consensual sex was death.
This does not necessarily mean that one night patrilineal clan A attacks, and in the morning the Y chromosome of patrilineal clan B is no more, but that is the net effect over time, meaning still fairly brutal.
For the model to work, a major unit of selection has to be the clan, with the men of clan B being eradicated, all of them, and the women of clan B being taken into clan A, which is what we expect to happen if cooperation is mediated through patrilineal relationships, and not matrilineal relationships, which implies women being hauled away, and males controlling their sexual choices.
For the model to work, your brothers in the male line and your cousins in the male line have to support your capability to reproduce, which requires that they restrain your women from screwing other men. Thus, patriarchy, and patrilocality. Patrilocality means you maintain your connection with your brothers and cousins in the male line, and if your sister is married or stolen outside of your male line, you lose your connection with her, and patriarchy means that the enforcement system for property also enforces marriage – thus your women are your property like your cattle, thus everyone knows who is someone’s father. You stick up for male kin’s property rights.
Exodus happens around the time of the collapse of bronze age civilization, 1200BC to 1150BC, therefore Abraham’s kin group contending successfully with kings have to be around 2000BC or so, which puts them well after the bottleneck, but they could well be a survival, a leftover, of the bottleneck social order. The bottleneck lasted from around 5000 BC to 3000BC. Abraham has to be around a thousand years after the bottleneck, but some remnants of the bottleneck social order are still going strong today, in that we still have societies where patrilineal groups are important in protecting property rights in women and cattle. America’s defeat in Somalia was patrilineal kin groups contending successfully with modern day sovereigns equipped with cruise missiles and attack helicopters five thousand years after the bottleneck, so it is plausible that Abraham and his kin could have successfully contended with Kings a thousand years after the bottleneck.
It looks as if the white race originated ten thousand years ago and four thousand years ago, in waves of near genocidal conquest by early whites. About eleven thousand years ago, neolithic grain growing middle eastern farmers, with light brown skins, dark hair, and brown eyes, who largely ate bread, porridge, and drank beer, conquered Europe, completely genociding the paleolithic brown skinned, but blue eyed, European hunter gatherers, who retreated before them towards Asia into more severe climate of Russia. As the middle easterners penetrated into harsher climates, they entered an environment less favorable for grain growing, and more favorable for cattle herding, and the paleolithic hunter gatherers retreating before them were no longer hunter gatherers, but cattle ranchers, so the conflict became more equal. The two races exchanged hostages, as recorded in the sagas, and interbred. Hybridization and subsequent selection produced higher IQ fair skinned people with mixed eye and hair colors, the ancestors of modern whites, who herded cattle, and lived on milk, meat, butter, and cheese. These people invented bronze and in due course, war chariots drawn by small horses, and conquered the farmers of Europe, killing the men and enslaving the women in another wave of hybridization, producing a race that largely ate bread, butter, and beer, who subsequently produced bronze age civilization.
But about twelve hundred years before Christ something went horribly wrong. Bronze age civilization collapsed and depopulated, and white pastoralists once again conquered, but this time, were conquering lands that had largely been abandoned – a functional society returned, because a dysfunctional society largely failed to reproduce. The switch from bronze to iron seems to have been forced by the collapse of long distance trade. Iron could be produced from local sources, but bronze required that people mine tin in one place, and copper in a very distant place, so that people were forced to find a technological solution to replace long distance cooperation, much as today the corporate form is collapsing, and we seek to replace the corporation with the block chain.
So it is non trivial to produce a society where competition leads to cooperation rather than destruction. Magic dirt does not do it, and high IQ does not in itself do it. A society where competition is productive rather than destructive is highly ordered and that order is the product both of selection and of conscious will.
The last days of bronze age civilization were socialist in the sense that the Egypt described in the bible was socialist, and socialist in the sense that Ithaca described by Homer was socialist. Archaeology indicates trade was centralized in the palace. Internationally traded goods and intertemporally traded goods, like the wheat that Joseph advised the Pharaoh to horde, were managed by kings, and distributed through the palace, as indicated by the archaeology of the Minoan civilization, indicating that private property rights were not secure. Similarly, we record Abraham pretending that his wife was his sister – thus property rights in women were insecure. And then, in the Ithaca recorded by Homer, and the Egypt recorded by Ipuwer, the property rights of the King also became insecure – people failed to reproduce due to the sexual immorality recorded by Ipuwer, and the fields lay unplanted, because he who sowed was unlikely to reap.
The decadent settled people of the bronze age vanished, and were largely replaced by severely patriarchal pastoralists – pastoralists who condemned coveting, and respected private property and marriage – thus prohibiting the most obvious forms of destructive competition.
In the ten commandments we see the conscious design of a social order by a ruler with kingly and theocratic power. The emphasis on prohibiting coveting suggest that Moses perceived the social breakdown and collapse of Egypt as a result of insecurity of marriage and property, but he was building on or reviving the social order of the patriarch Israel, or claimed to be doing so, which reflects the natural selection of social orders, since descendants of Israel had, overall, reproductive and military success – and it was this military capability that preserved their way of life against Egyptian attempts to multicult them, to assimilate their social order to the dysfunctional Egyptian social order.
There are four religious commandments concerning worship, which have the effect of making those obeying the commandments visible to others who obey the commandments, and ensuring that people who obey these commandments tend to associate with people who obey these commandments, since they were all required to take their rest day at the same time, and six commandments concerning how men shall deal with men, which have the effect of ensuring that competition for women and goods does not take destructive forms.
These latter six rules were generally obeyed by successful societies until recent times, but leftist redistribution of goods and emancipation of women now results in competition for women and goods being political, making it difficult to produce wealth or reproduce. Coveting, rather than being forbidden, has become a sacrament, and adultery a human right. Recollect how Starbucks was recently memed into providing black people with a free home and office.
If two men agree to exchange wheat and iron, the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not agree to it, and is unlikely to have significant externalities, but if a woman decides to have sex with a man, the decision is always deeply irrational, an eruption of volcanic forces that she does not comprehend and is scarcely aware of, and the decision is apt to have enormous externalities, harming her actual and potential children, her parents and siblings, and her present or future husband. But we regulate the hell out of two men exchanging wheat and iron, while horrifyingly wicked and self destructive sexual choices are an absolutely inalienable human right.
As is the murder of unborn children. Currently we have a system were the unborn are treated as non people in relation to women, and as people in relation to fathers and taxpayers.
If we suppose that the unborn should be treated as non people, then it makes no sense that the tax payer or the reluctant father should provide child support. Bastards should be killed or enslaved.
If, on the other hand, the unborn should be treated as people, then the mother should be compelled submit to the father, to be always sexually available to him and never to any other, and the father should be compelled to support, protect, supervise, and guide the mother and the child, and to always be sexually available to the mother.
An inalienable right of women, but not men, to murder children is made necessary by the inalienable right of women to have sex or refrain from having sex with whoever they choose, whenever they choose, because their choices are apt to be so disastrous as to produce problem children.
Leftism and female emancipation is coveting and adultery, and leads to destructive competition over goods and women. Adultery is not a code word for sex. It means much the same thing in female pussies as in beer.
Another important virtue, not covered in the old testament, is truth telling, which was, in the England of the restoration, an aristocratic and noble virtue thinly disguised as a Christian virtue, though it was never a Christian virtue. The Gentleman was independent of and resistant to social pressure to go along with the false consensus. The gentleman could be relied on to speak the truth because of his independence. This ideal of gentlemanly independence is the opposite of peer review, which produces truth by consensus behind closed doors. Peer Review has produced the replication crisis, where no one can trust other people’s data, and it was predictable that it would, since the social dynamics of consensus behind closed doors is to produce official truth unrelated to empirical truth, which by imperceptibly small degrees gradually becomes outright fraud, as unwanted data is “corrected” to fit the social consensus.
Peer review is bringing back the demon haunted dark. The demon haunted dark closes in upon us, shutting down nuclear power, forbidding fracking, superstitiously terrified of dangerous compounds at one thousandth their harmful levels. Peer Review needs to be condemned as vile, disgusting, and unclean, akin to adultery, for the social dynamics of peer review inevitably lead to lies being enforced, and truth being demonized. Peer review on empirical questions and empirical data is like wallowing in shit, you get exposed to memetic diseases. It is the memetic equivalent of gays in a bathhouse having sex in a great big pile. As sex in the bathhouse in a great big pile spreads biological diseases, peer review spreads memetic diseases. The lies fester and multiply behind closed doors.
The requirements of a functional social order are well known, narrow, and precise – and installing them means enforcing a moral code, requiring all in positions of status and power to affirm this moral code, and demolishing the status of anyone challenging this moral code by treating them as if they were stray dogs attacking your chickens, which moral code necessarily condemns leftism as inherently sinful.
Everyone should learn about the crimes of the twentieth century, and be taught that they were caused by coveting, as today they are taught that they were caused by racism.
It has been done in the past. It can be done again. That is the planning and conscious will aspect. If one society in one place manages it, and manages to keep to it, it will in due course colonialize all others, or massacre the menfolk of all others and enslave their women, or just eradicate all others completely. That is the natural selection of societies aspect. The social order of the patriarch Israel, with private property rights in cattle and women, was favored by natural selection, and consciously re-created by Moses in a deliberate act of political will, political violence, and divine revelation.