That Szolnoki & Perc study unambiguously corroborates what I’ve been saying about our evolutionary horizon:
“An important lesson learned from the presented results […] For an unconditional cooperator it never pays sticking with the strategy if surrounded by defectors, but it may be the best option among extortioners. Cooperators are of course happiest among other cooperators, but in the presence of extortioners they can still attain a positive payoff, and this is much better than nothing or a negative value in the presence of defectors.”
Extortion in this study as defined to basically mean the “use” of unconditional cooperators, IE: the extortionist agent cooperates with others so long as they reap slightly greater benefits than those they’re cooperating with.
Basically, the egoic interests of the cooperators is basically outsourced to the extortionist among them.
IE: extortioners farm—and therefore use their own egoic discretion—to protect unconditional cooperators, award them mates and so forth. This allows for certain stable proportions of different cognotypes (to use a neologism) to co-exist fruitfully with certain extortioners—egoists who see the immense utility in sustaining the “gullible, hapless fools” that are unconditional altruists.
Importantly—and this is sort of speculation on my part–I see the degree of altruistic behavior exhibited to be a function of general cognitive capacity, and to exist on a spectrum. IE: there is no hardline criterion, in our perceptions at least, between another agent being “one of us” or “alien”. This is partially why I think we s need to filter our discussion through cognition—genes prescribe the basic parameters and dimensions of cognition, and it is cognition—however unconscious it may be—which determines how we engage other agents in the world.
Importantly, I believe that as the evolution of a human system progresses, the costs of high IQ—and correlating degrees of cooperativeness/cuckishness—will diminish. Societal structures, such as monogamy and a universal reproductive ethic, will emerge (thanks to extortionists) that will safeguard the reproductive interests of high IQ cucks.
Therefore, I’m supposing a correlation between altruism and cognitive capacity.
And, remembering what I’ve been trying to emphasize, though at first glance the stuff I’m saying sounds like I’m saying we all start sucking google dick, I’m actually presenting this idea of an evolutionary horizon toward colorblind altruism, and even largely unconditional altruism, as a pretext for standing up and resolutely announcing—with a clean conscience and without our struggle as a zero-sum game—that the emperor wears no clothes, and that we the moral influencers of human culture are pulling the plug on antiracism.
The influential shot-callers in our society—the ‘elite globalists’—recognize the importance in, you know, being on the moral high ground. This is important because if they maximize the goodness they do for as many people as possible, or whatever, that allows them to stay in power. Thus, they are highly sensitive to universalist moral arguments. We will persuade these sociocultural elites, academics and so on, to support the cause of ending Antiracism.
What now follows is something that I wrote a couple years ago in an early manifesto entitled Hello: First Principles on Ending That Which We Oppose:
Though the terminology and thrust is somewhat immature, with some idiosyncratic terminology, and I kinda don’t recommend that you read the full book linked above, the passage to come is me basically arguing that certain people’s minds are broad enough to learn that, if they must abide by a general rule, being biased in favor of cooperation maximizes yields in the long run of one’s life or—even longer—of one’s genetic lineage. Through the wars and epochs of conform-or-die, cooperation wins out:
In life, there are two types of people: Those who understand the Prisoners’ Dilemma, and those who do not. Those who understand it appear to not only understand it, but understand it in their guts. They understand it like a cat’s cerebellum knows how to make a cat land on its feet.
This is why I reject the theory of punctuated equilibrium as being descriptive of current trends in human demographic shifts, and indeed why I am a self-proclaimed racist. What, it being so incontrovertibly apparent (although I shan’t belabor the evidence before Alternative Right’s readership) that this socio-cognitive ability of understanding the Prisoners’ Dilemma varies according to the fuzzy sets of human biodiversity colloquially referred to as ‘races’. As such, I embrace the appellation ‘racist’ not uncritically and heedlessly, because I seek to join the ranks of pariahs or because I’m a shock jock, but rather as a testament to just how wrong the proponents of racial equalitarianism are in my eyes and how little I want to be associated with them; how evil and unsustainable the ramifications of their program of social engineering are in attempting to forcibly select for people en masse who fail to understand the Prisoners’ Dilemma, and punish those who do understand it (and, what’s more, understand it in a way that’s balled up with a great many coexistent talents which, ironically, our society requires in order to pursue this social engineering in the first place).
We are being drawn irrevocably down the evolutionary path of cooperation. Cooperation always wins, just as the house always wins. This is why we humans were inevitable even back in the days of lifeless molecules, and later single-celled organisms. This is why something greater than us is inevitable, and already exists in a sense. As such, traits associated with cooperativeness and complicity, even if they seem superficial, will always prevail. Each one of us, if we are cooperative beings, will want to associate primarily with likewise cooperative beings. That’s how the magic works.
If we want to weed out uncooperative genes without using, for example, ‘blackness’ as a shortcut for what is undesirable, we must otherwise embark on a titanic eugenics project on the order of the Manhattan Project, in violation of human dignity on a scale of moral depravity hitherto unseen by humanity. We might be tempted to ask why we must eject uncooperative genes from the genepool, however if we are disrupting natural human mating patterns–which have increasingly selected for cooperativeness as well as a culture which values cooperativeness–for the sake of hybridizing the various fuzzy sets of human races into a monolithic, raceless human species, we would have to do so in a way that still facilitates our march towards cooperativeness. After all, as Jeff Goldblum’s character says in Jurassic Park, “Nature always finds a way.”
Inasmuch as the totalitarian anti-racist, anti-white (and anti-asian) morality is unsustainable, it only squeaks by in our society, for now, because we have amassed such vast wealth that cognitive dissonance is possible to such an extent that we can consecrate a theory so unfalsifiable and rife with paradox as being inviolable and absolute. After all, who wouldn’t want to believe that world peace, et c, is just around the corner? The idea that racial discrimination is the culprit behind the numerous racial disparities and conflicts which dog our utopian aspirations, and that we simply need to eliminate racial discrimination, is a lovely idea, but it is a toxic fantasy.
On a spiritual, personal level I am wholly opposed to discrimination. However, I simply cannot condone that human dignity be so defiled by such a vast, often institutional and judicial, suppression of a person’s natural faculties of discrimination, especially when discrimination is an intrinsic and immutable means by which the human brain compresses and distils its dizzyingly complex experiences. I simply cannot condone such brutal, heavy-handed suppression of racial discrimination when the victims of such suppression are free, rational agents who read from the book of nature and assemble their worldview through their subjective inductive logic, albeit impaired by a prejudicial finitude of the mind and constrainedness of perception. It is a violation of human dignity to force people to not only ignore, but roundly contradict their inductive logic. Non-institutional prejudice and discrimination ought to be a civil right just as institutional prejudice and discrimination, including affirmative action, ought to—indeed MUST—be outlawed.
On this note, while holding group rights in higher esteem than individual rights can be morally dangerous, group rights and freedom of association nevertheless MUST be upheld. In the future will be one without national boundaries, but in which groups will exercise sovereignty over themselves, existing alongside and in opposition to individual rights in a relationship analogous to the two houses of the bicameral congress of the United States.
Lastly, I cannot condone the suppression of such discrimination on the grounds that the prohibition of racial discrimination exists to the exclusion of a great many other forms of discrimination. Race should not be a privileged category in this regard. If we were to live in a society where we wore burqas or are strict adherents of John Lennon’s bagism, then I would be on-board but until then I am wholly opposed to discriminatory anti-discrimination movements.
World peace and cooperation is possible, but we must work towards it in a way that isn’t self-defeating and Orwellian. There is a middle path, just like there is a middle path in the Prisoners’ Dilemma.
This is a condemnation of the spirit of our age that, flawed as all ages are, is soon to pass.
To the vast majority of public individuals in Western society, I have this to say:
This experiment of placing the burden of proof, obstinately and on unequal ground, upon proponents of racial equality was not an error in history. I’m not suggesting that we turn back the clock. Racial equalitarianism, and the progressive politics which seek to be the silver frame unto its apple of gold, was a natural, inevitable epoch in human history. I propose that we learn from it, and use it to build even higher in the amelioration of the suffering of all sentient beings. We must not become fanatically dependent on it as the source of all our faith in a better tomorrow.
To race realists and white nationalists, I have this to say:
Know that if even a small but critical mass of people recognizes what I’m saying here as the path, and the only path, to the salvation of the white race, and so on, then we may overthrow the theory of racial equality from whence springs all this evil FAR sooner than will otherwise be the case. Our goal is the salvation of humanity; the salvation of white people is a byproduct of this. Fight for the many, save the few.
Thus, we ought seek to champion those with a fundamental cognitive affinity for cooperation, compliance, and deferential, assentive epistemology—those with an eagerness to believe in such fallacies as abstract knowledge systems, of which a prime example is the very antiracist ideas which we oppose; those who understand the primacy the Prisoners’ Dilemma—that cooperation and serving the greater good is always the smartest choice—the way a cat’s cerebellum understands how to land on its feet from a six-storey fall.
The difference between myself and the NRx ‘Dark Enlightenment’: They say unconditional and/or colorblind altruism is the bane of the white race. I say that colorblind and/or unconditional altruism is why the white race must be allowed to prosper free from antiracism’s chokehold.