This post was updated on .
After the South lost the American civil war, a number of Southerners (Confederates) set up communities in Latin America, particularly Brazil. What happened to them? According to Wikipedia:
"The first generation of Confederados remained an insular community. As is typical, by the third generation, most of the families had intermarried with native Brazilians or immigrants of other origins. Descendants of the Confederados increasingly spoke the Portuguese language and identified themselves as Brazilians. As the area around Santa Bárbara d'Oeste and Americana turned to the production of sugar cane and society became more mobile, the Confederados moved to cities for urban jobs. Today, only a few descendant families still live on land owned by their ancestors. The descendants of the Confederados are mostly scattered throughout Brazil."
Here is this community today.
This story is an example of intentional communities. Intentional communities generally don't last long. They have no natural immunity to the surrounding culture, so they get absorbed by it.
Could the Southerners have avoided this fate? To try, they should have studied history to look for similar examples that worked. And the one obvious example that worked is the Jews. When the Jews were conquered by Babylon they had a strong religion. That helped but wasn't enough. What the Jews did was to shift focus from religion to ethnicity. They devised a system to preserve their ethnicity without depending on having their own land.
What is ethnicity? According to Wikipedia:
"An ethnic group or ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion or social treatment within their residing area."
Ethnicity is not race, but any ethnicity that holds together will become a race. How are ethnicities formed? Typically people living together without too much outside influence will naturally become an ethnicity. Parts of the world that naturally isolate small groups, for example mountainous areas, tend to generate new ethnicities. In contrast, cosmopolitan areas tend to destroy any ethnicities that live there. The normal means for an ethnicity to preserve itself is to occupy a piece of land and limit immigration there. This is a nation. But the Jews have demonstrated that this isn't the only way. The key requirements for an ethnicity is clearly defined membership and limited immigration for those who aren't children of members. Jews meet these requirements without having national borders.
Another group that comes close to being an ethnicity are traditional Anabaptist church groups. But not quite. These groups are defined by religion. Children of members don't automatically become members, they must choose to join the religion. And the immigration policy is based on religion. The issue here is that religion totally dominates, unlike for Jews where a Jew doesn't have to follow Judaism. Why does this matter? One could argue in favor of the Anabaptist approach by saying that this preserves values. But the minus side is that it is very inflexible. For example the Anabaptists reject violence because of their religion. This inflexibility could cause them to be wiped out. Jews (and other ethnic groups) don't have this kind of inflexibility, so they can adapt. Another minor issue with the Anabaptist approach is that this puts an upper limit on the intelligence of members since intelligent people often have unconventional interpretations of religion.
I wish there were more groups that could be compared to Jews, but I can't think of any. So I will just comment on what I think the Jews got right and wrong. It was Ezra who changed the Jews from a religious group to an ethnic group. I used to think Ezra was wrong but now I think he was right. But Ezra didn't set any immigration policies. So what happened is that Judaism divided into many sects and each sect had its own immigration policy. The variety of sects can be seen around the time of Jesus. In the end, the most ethnocentric sect won out, this being the Talmudic Jews. The immigration policy is allowing in those who can tolerate several years of Talmudic bullshit. The Talmud is utterly repulsive and immoral, so I don't think this is an ideal immigration policy. But it is certainly better than nothing.
The modern world is becoming increasingly globalist. Land-based nations are being destroyed by immigration. The solution is to learn from the Jews and create intentional ethnicities that are not based on land. The core requirements of such an ethnicity include a clear definition of membership. Children whose parents (both) are members should automatically become members. This provides continuity. Immigration policy should be clear and preferably not determined by a religion. Membership/citizenship should be irrevocable so that dissidents can present their views. But there should also be a way out of the group, probably by marrying out in which case the children may not be members. By allowing genes to come in by meeting immigration requirements, and allowing genes to leave that aren't ethnocentric enough, you will produce a race which is ethnocentric and reflects the values inherent in the immigration requirements. Immigration requirements that test good traits like intelligence will result in a eugenic ethnicity which will generate a superior race.
I admit that this idea of intentional ethnicity is a bit far out. But I see no alternative. Humanity is turning into genetic garbage. If you only care about your own life then you can move to some reasonably tolerable corner of the world. But if you care about future generations then intentional ethnicity is the only answer.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|