Amerika

Very few can face the progression of civilization suicide because if they did, they would have to stop what they were doing right away and begin fighting back, knowing that preserving late civilization requires losing most of its citizens.

All civilizations ultimately die by one of two forms of entropy: repetition or randomness. One usually brings on the other, but the randomness often comes first since it seems to the human mind like a promising idea.

Why would people go in for such ironism and reality-denial? It makes them feel powerful to reject nature, and it makes them stand out in their social group, but also, humans are fundamentally self-pitying and hate nature for not being personable.

An established society will produce its share of ironists when there are people who come from a prosperous background but are either unable to compete, or unwilling to, having seen their parents give their lives away for wealth or to pay taxes.

The higher the burden for normal people, the more they defect, but any established civilization will not last long without taxes, and once it has taxes, those will be plundered by its leaders unless they are able to avoid wars.

In other words, the happy nation is one that is totally isolated, like on its own planet, because it can avoid starting the decay cycle.

Otherwise, the taxes go up and so do the costs, since when you support a permanent civilization, there need to be jobs for everyone as well as the burden of socialized costs like a broken window on a public building. Even if society does not socialize costs, costs go up with expenses: your publican will raise the price of pints if someone breaks his window, to pay for the window, but the price never goes back down, does it? ono

An unhappy nation starts out with a healthy monarchy, but then when the middle class and other groups competing with the monarchy for power — religion, foreign investment, working classes — join up and overthrow the monarchy, it becomes a democracy.

At that point, people no longer think forward, as in “if I do X I get result Y.” Instead they think backward, as in, “if I want to do X, what Y do I need to justify it?”

From this you get brainless deductive thinking and dominance by precedent. Soon people are entirely individualistic, or doing whatever they want and explaining it later in terms of the accepted dogma of the time.

This makes dogma important, so you get egalitarianism, or the idea that we are all equal, which translates in human-think to “since I’m equal, I can do whatever I want and no one can criticize me.”

Egalitarianism takes off like a virus. Since it is unbounded, meaning that the parameters of equality are undefined, it expands to fill all available space. This leads to feminism and eventually internationalism, or rejection of nationality.

At that point, you get diversity. This goes through three cycles:

1. Erasure of culture. When you have one culture, people know what is expected in behavior, aesthetics, calendar, cuisine, attire, preferences, and religious beliefs. When you add in another culture, you then have a container culture for those two cultures, and the container culture rules dominate. Those, as is the case in all pluralistic ventures, expand to include the cultures within it, which leads to a permissiveness since there is no longer one right way to do things. Eventually people give up on culture.
2. Loss of unity. Once you adopt multiculturalism, people no longer have anything in common, and have no idea how their actions will be perceived by the random non-culture of mixed-culture. Consequently they avoid society and avoid thinking about its future, focusing instead on greedily piling up enough wealth so that they can escape. This is the hunkering down of Robert Putnam:
   

   Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

   In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

   “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.

   When everyone is like you, you know what to say in conversation, how to behave in public, and what will be rewarded. When there are Other in the mix, you are guessing as to how something will turn out, and since that has catastrophic consequences when the mob, enraged at a demonstration of the failure of its social system, attacks dissenters, people opt simply to say nothing and not engage.

3. Genocide by admixture. When you mix one population with another, you get a third, and the original two are destroyed. Our genetic profiles consist of many traits that work together, but when races, ethnic groups, or social classes mix, those traits are picked at random from one or another of the parents, resulting in a chaotic genetic profile. This increases the slow decay of the genetic profile in parallel to cellular aging, where the genome becomes corrupted and chaotic, thus eventually fully dysfunctional:
   

   Cellular senescence, which occurs when aging cells stop dividing, is caused by irreversible damage to the genome rather than simply by telomere erosion.

   In other words, when the order of genes becomes interrupted, the genetic framework fails, even if most individual genes are in place. Imagine inserting random divide-by-zero instructions into computer code for a good example of how this will turn out. Human populations respond to genetic disorder by reverting to the simplest working model, which seems to be small people with round faces and dark hair; most likely, as the decay goes on, those simply revert back to being hominids.

This means that any racial or ethnic mixing is fatal to not just a civilization, but to future generations, since they will possess none of the original traits.

We can see an example of this in the contrast between modern Italy and ancient Rome.

Modern Italians have more African admixture than ancient Romans:

We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations. Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed. For the Jewish admixture, we obtain an average estimated date of about 72 generations. This may reflect descent of these groups from a common ancestral population that already had some African ancestry prior to the Jewish Diasporas.

This means that somewhere close to 1900 years ago, Southern Europe experienced an inflow from North Africa, probably in a circular pattern with a North Africa to Southern Europe rotation following trade routes established by the Roman Empire:

We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene. The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe.

Even more, we can see a real-time record of sudden admixture during the Roman period which brought in Asiatic and African genetic material:

Despite comprising diverse individuals of central European, northern African, and Near Eastern ancestry, the local gene pool is largely maintained across the first millennium BCE. This drastically changes during the Roman Imperial period where we report an abrupt population-wide shift to ~50% admixture with eastern Mediterranean ancestry.

In addition, Southern Europe suffered a higher rate of Asiatic admixture in Europe possibly due in part to Roman incorporation of Eastern territories:

Our results indicate that most genetic admixtures occurred between 2,400 and 310 years ago and show the admixture proportions to be highly correlated with geographic locations, with the highest admixture proportions observed in Central Asia and the lowest in East Asia and Northwestern Europe. Interestingly, we observed a North-to-South decline of European gene flow in East Asians, suggesting a northern path of European gene flow diffusing into East Asian populations.

Once society goes egalitarian, it becomes diverse, and then it abolishes its culture and invites in the world. Even in small amounts, these alter the genome enough that it does not rise again, much like Italy and Greece have become unimportant in the present age despite once having been great empires. The difference is in the genes.

Tags: african admixture, asiatic admixture, european genetics, genetic admixture, trace admixture