Neo-reaction and Human Biodiversity. Are humans equal? - General

Hello! Today I am interested in arguing about neoreactionary philosophy. This is followed by why they (and some who aren't neoreactionaries) are arguing about why humans may not be intrinsically equal. [b]1: What is a neoreactionary?[/b] A neoreactionary is somebody who is part of a fairly new movement, having been born in the silicon valley of California. It is in many ways a continuation of the older "reactionaries" of the 19th and 20th centuries, but with major updates, most especially in knowledge of human psychology and biology. Their beliefs, views, and suggestions differ, but all agree on a single unifying tenet, in stark contrast to a great deal of other political philosophies. They argue that [b]humans are not equal.[/b] Acknowledgement of this fact allows for societies around the world to adopt policies tailored to their own people, rather than a one-size-fits all policy as to how all humans should be treated. Failure to do so will result in greater inter-group conflict, the consistent failure of policies, and the inability to resolve a number of glaring problems. [b]2: What is neoreactionary thought?[/b] While some of the links provided can give helpful information on the movement and its philosophy, I will do my best to summarize the majority of them here. In the past two or three centuries, as a result of the general explosion of human activities in all fields (especially in technology and science), almost all monarchist states (most especially in the west) have been dismantled as the result of revolution, warfare, or progressive reform. Democracies are spreading, and rapidly. Many are in agreement that as such, they constitute the best form of government. The citizens possess freedoms and may vote on policies affecting them. However, the neoreactionary sees a major problem. They argue that the modern western state is in fact run by a number of groups with generally convergent interests, with time in the form of demographic and economic pressures on their side. This ruling class as such is generally considered to be composed of those in the civil service and often other institutions within or dependent on the state (such as education). Many people in modern democratic states may believe themselves to be in the best of all possible societies, but this may have also been a thought shared among the Ming Chinese or the 18th century French. As an example, Western states often pride themselves on humane methods of treating their prisoners. This usually involves locking them inside a psychologically damaging concrete cube for a decade before writing on a record what they did, so they may become unemployable. Calls from the public are often made to bring back harsher punishments. The consequence of the industrial revolution has allowed them to use the power of modern media and government policy to gradually shift policies in a vague "leftward" direction (neither socialist or liberal as such, and it won't go towards either). This is an unconscious process, as in general the political attitudes of the population shifts left each generation. While a popular politician (such as Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan) may halt this temporarily, it cannot be stopped. This trend eventually leads towards a greater professed desire for equality, the result of which is many states often dismantling (arguably) useful social, political, and economic institutions in order to appease this trend. The neoreactionary argues that this trend is ultimately bad, for reasons below. [b]3: Are humans equal?[/b] One of the most notable results of the social sciences has been the large and continuous differences between differing social groups. Racism is a well documented phenomena across all societies for at least the past thousand years. Different groups of people have often viewed the other as different in some way, usually with prejudice and sometimes to the point of slavery or genocide. Many hold that perceived differences do exist. Let us look at the difference between humans. There are three main arguments (cultural, external, and biological). -The Externalist claims that human groups only differ because of the environments they find themselves in. The ancient civilizations prospered because some happened to be in a lucky spot where they could domesticate a lot of animals and plants, and later develop powerful civilizations. The others had no such access to animals or plants for domestication, resigning them to obscurity. In the modern day, this may change to colonialism or oppression. The reason for the success of the Eurasians is due to a head start that allowed them to oppress and ultimately subjugate different peoples. People are not held back by inherent flaws, but by the conditions of their environment. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel[/url] -The Culturist explains that rather than environment, is it to the culture of a society that they succeeded. A culture which values hard work and investment in the future, or perhaps better means of resolving dispute, does better than others. On the other hand, a society would be held back due to traditions which valued conformity or violence. In the modern era, these same cultural traits being practiced today is the reason for the success of these groups. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism[/url] -Finally the Biologist argues along much different lines. The main reason they argue for the success of various groups, is often due to inherent genetic factors. For instance, a group which has to fend off more parasites and diseases will expend more on keeping these at bay. This in turn results in less investment into the brain, as keeping the diseases at bay is more important. A factor resulting in greater investment into the brain could be because it is more heavily valued in a place with reduced parasitic diseases. Of course, were somebody from the place with fewer diseases to be brought to the other place, they would quickly succumb. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Fincher%20CL%22%5bAuthor%5d%20AND%20%22Thornhill%20R%22%5bAuthor%5d[/url] I would argue that in short, humans are not equal. Since the decoding of the human genome in 2003 and recent rise of genome sequencing, new and awkward questions are being brought up. Human evolution has certainly not stopped anytime in the past 50,000 or so years when the first major groups (aborigines for instance) began splitting off. In the past 10,000 years, several societies developed agrarian societies with complex forms of societal organization and ended up gradually dominating the globe. In the timespan of 10,000 years, many groups of humans have adapted to the environments around them in minor ways, often stacking up in aggregate to produce often major changes. These variations in groups eventually lead to the major subgroups of humankind existing today. Microevolution itself is still continuing steadily, and while it is too soon to say how humans will adapt to the industrial society, it is already well known that evolution does not halt in such conditions. A summary of several of them are here (applies to differing groups): 1: Resistance to climatic extremes. 2: Resistance to diseases (smallpox for instance) 3: Loss of the ability to make melanin. 4: Resistance to high altitude living (the Tibetans may have an genetic adaptation as young as 3000 years to high altitude living) 5: Increasing age at which women enter menopause. However, while biologically distinct populations of humans may exist (one may actually map and find out where a persons ancestors originated from via such a method: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test#Geographic_origin_tests[/url]), it is not neccessarily a call or argument towards creating policies which discriminate based upon the group to which a person belongs.

I'm inclined to believe in a biological reasoning on this issue. However, I'm not sold on the idea that simply biology is enough to determine this. Although biology is hugely important in our development, I think that realistically, all three elements play a near equal role in what causes the differences. Biology determines whether or not certain elements of our physical bodies are expressed, but the environment equally, I think, would determine whether or not those elements were expressed enough across enough people over a given period of time. The culture that the surviving generations would develop would be important in the sense it's a selective choice mechanism on the genes that are passed on. The culture would both be influenced by the environment, and influence the direct environments of the people living inside it. These changes would all be a tug of war game in three directions, maybe even another direction if we can think of another way we're affected. I also feel like it's a bit troublesome on a legal level to even acknowledge it lest there be some push for lawmaking based on it. I can't see that going well, period.

i don't buy the idea that some people are inferior/superior, yes people are unequal from socioeconomic factors but if any of the many attempts to create a unified world government have shown, theres still a basic idea that everyone should be on an equal stage even if they might be different. the USSR, League of Nations, UN/NATO, EU, USA, they are all attempts for vastly different groups of peoples coming togather to form a common law to govern everybody and treat everyone as close to equal as possible further more the premis that [B]some[/B] people are superior and ment to govern the inferiors is laughably bad. massive inequality is what causes massive revolts and massive societal problems, all the coup's going on in the world right now are directly result of one small group of people believing they deserve to rule because they are stronger, better educated, or wealthier than the rest of people. finally the idea that five hundred years of democratic societal change should be overturned is even more laughable, western culture has hard fought to remove the monarchs, the autocrats, the oligarchs and their like from ruling over society, from that we have seen the largest boost in productivity, life span, population, and scientific gain in human history. societies built around the wealthy or top people are inherantly unstable, poorly productive, and completely unsustainable right now in the aftermath of the fall of the USSR and the opening of capitalizm in the east, there has been a massive rise in oligarchs, for a while there it seemed like democracy would prosper in the east but then the wealthy took power and brought people like putin in office, leaders who are given total authority to do whatever they see fit as long as the wealthy stay protected and the rest of the population stays below them

[QUOTE=Sableye;44901291]i don't buy the idea that some people are inferior/superior, yes people are unequal from socioeconomic factors but if any of the many attempts to create a unified world government have shown, theres still a basic idea that everyone should be on an equal stage even if they might be different. the USSR, League of Nations, UN/NATO, EU, USA, they are all attempts for vastly different groups of peoples coming togather to form a common law to govern everybody and treat everyone as close to equal as possible further more the premis that [B]some[/B] people are superior and ment to govern the inferiors is laughably bad. massive inequality is what causes massive revolts and massive societal problems, all the coup's going on in the world right now are directly result of one small group of people believing they deserve to rule because they are stronger, better educated, or wealthier than the rest of people. [/quote] Denying the possibility of humans being inherently different from each other is unwise, there are possible issues that might arise from it and these are better solved then buried. That said I agree whole heartedly that people should not be judged on race, using this for discrimination, eugenics, slavery etc would be possible and disastrous outcome. [quote] finally the idea that five hundred years of democratic societal change should be overturned is even more laughable, western culture has hard fought to remove the monarchs, the autocrats, the oligarchs and their like from ruling over society, from that we have seen the largest boost in productivity, life span, population, and scientific gain in human history. societies built around the wealthy or top people are inherantly unstable, poorly productive, and completely unsustainable[/quote] The suggestion that the west is somehow rid of oligarchy and the influence of money/bribery is incorrect. [quote] right now in the aftermath of the fall of the USSR and the opening of capitalizm in the east, there has been a massive rise in oligarchs,[/quote] What else do you expect? An absolute power void + people with lots of assets and power = new leaders [quote] for a while there it seemed like democracy would prosper in the east but then the wealthy took power and brought people like putin in office, leaders who are given total authority to do whatever they see fit[/quote] Say what you like about Putin but he is popular and is helping Russia grow. Quality of life indicators such as birth rate and wages are going up. Consider it objectively, there are better governments but he is far from the worst. [quote] as long as the wealthy stay protected and the rest of the population stays below them[/quote] You are talking about social mobility. True some western countries have good social mobility (finland, norway, sweden) but the US and UK have terrible social mobility. They are literally "wealthy stay protected and the rest of the population stays below". It is all well and good criticising and state and the system by which is operates but please do so in an objective manner instead of: Capitalism + democracy = no autocracy, no corruption, no oligarchs, more social mobility, more happiness. [editline]27th May 2014[/editline] Ah I went off topic slightly there... For my own opinions on the matter I do believe humans are genetically different but it should not be used as a tool of oppression. Acknowledging it will help over come difficulties but people should be given the choice to work where they feel they are best. A muscular person shouldn't be forced to work in a field if their true desire and skill lies with computer programming etc.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;44921480]A muscular person should be forced to work in a field if their true desire and skill lies with computer programming etc.[/QUOTE] Possible typo?

[QUOTE=Ziks;44921913]Possible typo?[/QUOTE] Ah yes, shouldn't be. Cheers! Fixing.

Even with shiny-new scientific discoveries you can't hid the stench of authoritarian duplicity that all movements which postulate to solve the inefficiencies of democracy have. Putting window dressing on the resurrected corpse of a long discredited ideology isn't going to fool anyone. Who benefits from such a change, indeed [U]who defines who is better[/U]? Science hasn't been able to connect genetic differences with an aversion to certain forms of societal structure. We cannot trust the examination of culture and environmental differences because it does not have the evidentiary rigor required to make such connections. At what point does it not become arbitrary to nuance our treatment of people? Faced with the realisation that their success and wealth doesn't allotment what they see as their just desserts, a bunch of idiots from California have farted out this turd of an ideology in the hope it will stick anywhere other than their underwear. People have been making the same complaint ever since Athens connected [I]demos [/I]with [I]kratia[/I]. Giving them the light of day even when they throw up tenuously connected theories and discoveries is a bad idea.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44922284]Even with shiny-new scientific discoveries you can't hid the stench of authoritarian duplicity that all movements which postulate to solve the inefficiencies of democracy have. Putting window dressing on the resurrected corpse of a long discredited ideology isn't going to fool anyone. Who benefits from such a change, indeed [U]who defines who is better[/U]? Science hasn't been able to connect genetic differences with an aversion to certain forms of societal structure. We cannot trust the examination of culture and environmental differences because it does not have the evidentiary rigor required to make such connections. At what point does it not become arbitrary to nuance our treatment of people? Faced with the realisation that their success and wealth doesn't allotment what they see as their just desserts, a bunch of idiots from California have farted out this turd of an ideology in the hope it will stick anywhere other than their underwear. People have been making the same complaint ever since Athens connected [I]demos [/I]with [I]kratia[/I]. Giving them the light of day even when they throw up tenuously connected theories and discoveries is a bad idea.[/QUOTE] You can breed a cow to give better milk or a dog to be more intelligent. Why wouldn't it work with humans? I believe its possible I just don't believe its right.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;44922678]You can breed a cow to give better milk or a dog to be more intelligent. Why wouldn't it work with humans? I believe its possible I just don't believe its right.[/QUOTE] Human genetics is incredibly complicated and different than either dogs or cattle; and you have to define "intelligence". A dog that follows commands well often is thought of as being intelligent, but it's actually just attentive and docile.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;44923106]Human genetics is incredibly complicated and different than either dogs or cattle[/quote] While human genetics is indeed a complex field of study, so is that of other mammals. Indeed, relatively little separates us from them. [quote]and you have to define "intelligence".[/quote] Usually it's a measure of abstract thought, logic, understanding, communication, memory, problem solving, etc with standardized Intelligence Quotient tests being able to measure these things. Such tests have been accurately kept for decades, complete with an entire field of study dedicated to this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics[/url] [quote]A dog that follows commands well often is thought of as being intelligent, but it's actually just attentive and docile.[/QUOTE] Actually the dog requires intelligence in order to follow instructions. A dog needs to be able to understand what the command is, needs to memorize it, to be able to do it when commanded, etc. Despite the limited gene pool to work from, whole breeds of dogs have been brought into existence through selective pressures, some as young as few centuries. Indeed, there are breeds of dog that can learn more quickly and memorize a command much better than others can. There are dogs bred for fighting, for families, for herding animals, etc. It isn't a great leap to say that such things are possible among all other mammals, including primates (considering that we have observed this to be the case).

[quote] Despite the limited gene pool to work from, whole breeds of dogs have been brought into existence through selective pressures, some as young as few centuries. Indeed, there are breeds of dog that can learn more quickly and memorize a command much better than others can. There are dogs bred for fighting, for families, for herding animals, etc. It isn't a great leap to say that such things are possible among all other mammals, including primates (considering that we have observed this to be the case). [/quote] Dogs aren't a good example for selective breeding simply because they are insanely genetically plastic. You can get variations in form and function that you can't get with other creatures in short periods of time due to this.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;44923755]insanely genetically plastic.[/quote] What do you mean by this? Also would the breeder equation work on humans as well as dogs? If not, why are dogs so special? Or horses, rabbits, cats, mice, rats, and cattle.

This just seems to be an alternate ideology to natural right, which just happens to be the foundational ideology for most, if not all, of the western world.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44923836]What do you mean by this?[/quote] It means that very tiny genetic changes produce disproportionately large effects, in comparison with other animals; it's a product of quirks in their genetics. Plus, they've got peculiarities in their skeletal development which make unusual physical phenotypes possible to express.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;44924110]It means that very tiny genetic changes produce disproportionately large effects, in comparison with other animals; it's a product of quirks in their genetics. Plus, they've got peculiarities in their skeletal development which make unusual physical phenotypes possible to express.[/QUOTE] And this doesn't happen in humans?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44924127]And this doesn't happen in humans?[/QUOTE] Not nearly to anything like that degree, no. Humans are also peculiar in their lack of genetic diversity; there's more difference between subspecies of chimp than human populations. Most of our diversity is within continent groups, not between. On the order of 87.6% versus 9.2%, in favor of within groups.

No offence to the guy but he's predicting his argument on humans being " incredibly different" than other mammals. He must have missed the bit about high altitude human adaptation in op.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;44924239]No offence to the guy but he's predicting his argument on humans being " incredibly different" than other mammals. He must have missed the bit about high altitude human adaptation in op.[/QUOTE] We're not 'incredibly different' from mammals; merely those that prove practical to selectively breed for useful effects.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;44924219]Not nearly to anything like that degree, no. Humans are also peculiar in their lack of genetic diversity; there's more difference between subspecies of chimp than human populations. Most of our diversity is within continent groups, not between. On the order of 87.6% versus 9.2%, in favor of within groups.[/QUOTE] Yet this is also the same among dogs. Most genetic diversity is within dog breeds, instead of outside of them. Of course, this doesn't stop different breeds of dog existing. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy#Edwards.27_critique[/url] [url]http://abc102.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/lewontins-2nd-fallacy/[/url]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;44922678]You can breed a cow to give better milk or a dog to be more intelligent. Why wouldn't it work with humans? I believe its possible I just don't believe its right.[/QUOTE] You could genetically engineer a race of heroic ubermensch humans but that doesn't alter the fact that it has no bearing on political interaction. Connecting genetic 'superiority' (again who gets to decide?) with the ability to function in society is a complete fabrication. The European isn't somehow [U]more[/U] able to be a democrat than the African because of genetics. Calling for nuance in how human societies treat groups of people because of mild variations in environment, cultural and genetic factors is completely absurd, especially when it is applied as a 'fix' to the somehow intolerable shift toward egalitarianism. The neo-reactionary argues we should dismantle the equalising effect of democracy [I]because they think they're better than other people and it would be unfair to allow their lessers to have the same power and opportunity as them.[/I] Frankly they're complete fucking idiots.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44928202]You could genetically engineer a race of heroic ubermensch humans but that doesn't alter the fact that it has no bearing on political interaction. Connecting genetic 'superiority' (again who gets to decide?) with the ability to function in society is a complete fabrication. The European isn't somehow [U]more[/U] able to be a democrat than the African because of genetics. Calling for nuance in how human societies treat groups of people because of mild variations in environment, cultural and genetic factors is completely absurd, especially when it is applied as a 'fix' to the somehow intolerable shift toward egalitarianism. The neo-reactionary argues we should dismantle the equalising effect of democracy [I]because they think they're better than other people and it would be unfair to allow their lessers to have the same power and opportunity as them.[/I] Frankly they're complete fucking idiots.[/QUOTE] It seems to me that humans are equal in so far as they are born naturally (I.e with vertical genetic transferrance). Once we start tampering with people, and make the ubermensch as you call them, how long would it be before jobs and other services start being prioritized to these people? Who would you pick for a job; a normal person who might have a flaw, or a genetically ensured person who has increased memory, never gets sick, and has increased self control (or whatever). It seems to me that while neo-reactionism may be wrong, it is inevitable when provided with a competitive market and a limitation of materials. This argument fundamentally hinges upon the difference between vertiical and horizontal gene transfer. It is the difference between GMO and organic. [editline]27th May 2014[/editline] Some relevant ideas are explored in this thread regarding whether people should genetically engineer themselves. [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1319329[/url]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;44929435]It seems to me that humans are equal in so far as they are born naturally (I.e with vertical genetic transferrance).[/QUOTE] I can agree that we all deserve equal rights, but are all naturally born humans equally capable? What about those who are born blind, with missing limbs, or with the majority of their cerebral cortex replaced with Cerebrospinal fluid due to a natural mutation? [QUOTE]Once we start tampering with people, and make the ubermensch as you call them, how long would it be before jobs and other services start being prioritized to these people? Who would you pick for a job; a normal person who might have a flaw, or a genetically ensured person who has increased memory, never gets sick, and has increased self control (or whatever).[/QUOTE] We already have a similar kind of selection for those born to wealthy families compared to people born to critically poor ones. I'll agree that a mixture of horizontal and vertical gene transfer in a society would lead to an even larger economical divide, but what about if it became illegal to have children through vertical gene transfer due to the unfair disadvantage and potentially life threatening genetic disorders it could cause for the child?

[QUOTE=Ziks;44930434]I can agree that we all deserve equal rights, but are all naturally born humans equally capable? What about those who are born blind, with missing limbs, or with the majority of their cerebral cortex replaced with Cerebrospinal fluid due to a natural mutation? We already have a similar kind of selection for those born to wealthy families compared to people born to critically poor ones. I'll agree that a mixture of horizontal and vertical gene transfer in a society would lead to an even larger economical divide, but what about if it became illegal to have children through vertical gene transfer due to the unfair disadvantage and potentially life threatening genetic disorders it could cause for the child?[/QUOTE] Firstly, I don't see sterlization of anyone who wants to have real baby as a morally or even socially feasible. Secondly, once the difference between people becomes empirical, the gap will not only be economic. Warmongers and racists get off on making bold statements about groups of people. I can only see that problem being compacted by the introduction of basically S.P.E.C.I.A.L

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;44933334]Firstly, I don't see sterlization of anyone who wants to have real baby as a morally or even socially feasible.[/QUOTE] Surely those are only subjective issues with no objective grounds for complaint. It would be difficult to convince an existing society that is adverse to a change of this kind, so what would be feasible is the founding of a new society initially containing individuals that see the benefits of purely horizontal gene transfer. Also, "real baby"? [QUOTE]Secondly, once the difference between people becomes empirical, the gap will not only be economic. Warmongers and racists get off on making bold statements about groups of people. I can only see that problem being compacted by the introduction of basically S.P.E.C.I.A.L[/QUOTE] There already is an empirical gap between people born with congenital disabilities and those without, a gap that would be eliminated in a society of purely horizontal gene transfer. Also I'm assuming the gene transfer process would still be between a pair of adults, so the only genes they can select for are the ones present in those adults. It would basically be identical to a vertical gene transfer, just without the lottery of a child possibly being born with a congenital disease like cystic fibrosis.

There's some pretty bad [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation"]equivocation[/URL] going on here. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44900783]1: Resistance to climatic extremes. 2: Resistance to diseases (smallpox for instance) 3: Loss of the ability to make melanin. 4: Resistance to high altitude living (the Tibetans may have an genetic adaptation as young as 3000 years to high altitude living) 5: Increasing age at which women enter menopause.[/QUOTE] These are irrefutable genetic inequalities between humans. [QUOTE=Ziks;44930434]What about those who are born blind, with missing limbs, or with the majority of their cerebral cortex replaced with Cerebrospinal fluid due to a natural mutation?[/QUOTE] But physical handicaps can be non-hereditary or entirely non-genetic. So now you're talking about a different kind of "equal". And I don't see how either of these directly relate to legal equality (which I think is what most people are talking about when they say we are "created equal"). Either specify a definition of equality that you're discussing or argue for why legal equality should be equivalent to genetic equality (for example). [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44900783]Many people in modern democratic states may believe themselves to be in the best of all possible societies, but this may have also been a thought shared among the Ming Chinese or the 18th century French.[/quote] I don't know what "many" you are talking about here, but from the news it seems to me that a lot of people across all parties are disappointed with the state of modern society. Again, here I don't see any connection between your talk of inequality and changes in law. Are people adapted to high altitude living being persecuted by certain laws? Lastly, all of this reeks of social Darwinism. You frequently use terms like "success" and "held-back" as though life is some race toward a finish line. Did European settlers "succeed" over native Americans? Is the measure of superiority the ability to destroy other cultures?

[QUOTE=Larikang;44934107]And I don't see how either of these directly relate to legal equality (which I think is what most people are talking about when they say we are "created equal"). Either specify a definition of equality that you're discussing or argue for why legal equality should be equivalent to genetic equality (for example).[/QUOTE] I assumed we were talking about an equality of potential, as the original post seems to suggest. In any case, lacking a cerebral cortex would certainly lead to a legal inequality as you would have no cognitive abilities or be able to experience any percepts including pain. You would be classed as brain dead upon arrival, and would have the reduced rights of a brain dead individual.

[quote]The suggestion that the west is somehow rid of oligarchy and the influence of money/bribery is incorrect. [/quote] im not saying we DID eliminate oligarchy, however we HAVE enshrined the prinicple in our government that the few shouldn't rule the many [quote]Say what you like about Putin but he is popular and is helping Russia grow. Quality of life indicators such as birth rate and wages are going up. Consider it objectively, there are better governments but he is far from the worst. [/quote] you ignored my post completely on this, i was pointing out that putin is mearly in power at the whim of the powerful oligarchs who use their influence to effect geopolitical change to better enrich themselves, while sacrificing their countrymen in pointless squabbles, the same thing is going on in china, a few rich oligarchs are ready to put the PLA and People's Navy to war over a gas field that holds trillions in untapped wealth instead of negotiating with their neighbors or working it out through established diplomatic channels and as long as it allows the PLA and the Navy to rattle their sabres and effect influence over the region they'll gladly do it [editline]28th May 2014[/editline] [quote] Capitalism + democracy = no autocracy, no corruption, no oligarchs, more social mobility, more happiness.[/quote] i was not implying that democracy and the western individualism isn't without its problems, but at least the ideals that back the governments of the west are for the people, not run by a select class of nobles. the governments that seem to run on this principle need no rule of law, as long as the rightful rulers are placated, the poor masses are ignored, they control the rule book so they can control how things work. government service at least in the U.S. was originally meant to be a service, you represented the people's interests, not the people representing your interests as reactionism is concerned

[QUOTE=Sableye;44938178]government service at least in the U.S. was originally meant to be a service, you represented the people's interests, not the people representing your interests as reactionism is concerned[/QUOTE] Government service in the US also originally was solely a function of the township, not the federal or even state government. By being so locally based it was easy to keep the people in mind.

The issue with all these movements is, that in the end they are often used to enact segregatory and or racist or classist policies wherein they try to isolate a fairly large chunk of society from vertical class movement. Humans aren't equal so we don't even have to give them a chance. It doesn't matter if humans actually are or are not equal, it will result in this sooner or later.

A recent book by Nicholas Wade, [I]A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History[/I], makes a very similar argument to the OP, i.e. that race does exist and that humans are unequal in a number of ways. Wade does make it very clear that this shouldn't be used to justify eugenics or racism and I don't think he would describe himself as a reactionary. The work has proved very controversial, though as is often the case more amongst journalists than scientists.