Inherent Nature

Imagine that you at 16 meet your daughter from the future, and she informs you that 20 years from now you are going to be a great inventor and charismatic leader. It is obvious enough that she would treat you as her father, and as said great leader, and that you would treat her as your daughter- Even though you share no history with her, nor do you have any achievements at said time. IE, the merit held by a great inventor/ect. is not born from the achievement but is instead a inherent attribute. Similarly, bonds of friendship and family are not built upon actions but upon inherent traits.
Many would argue that the past persona isn't relevant to the future one, due to lacking the experience that he will receive in the future. That would surmise that the person is unimportant and his experience is what matters. However, this runs afoul of a peculiar fact- that many people try the same things, but very few get results. If experience were all that mattered, then the schools that we funneled absurd amounts of money into would succeed, everyone who came out of a university would have equivalent results in the field, and people like Steve Jobs could be output like clockwork. In truth, we find great thinkers who dropped out of high school and incompetent buffoons who have a phd.

We live in a 4 dimensional world- A achievement in the future is no less meaningful than a achievement in Russia. As such, the only objective reason to withhold proper respect for a great inventor of the future is lack of information. At this point though we run afoul of quantum physics- from Schrodinger's Cat we know that any unknown state can be accurately depicted as a superposition of all of its possible states, and as such, a probabilistic cloud. However, this effect need not only be applied forward in time. Any point in history can be framed as a point within a giant tree, a series of parallel time-lines based on the various choices made by the universe. So, to loop backwards, we can say that anyone who CAN make a great invention should receive the same respect as someone who DOES make a great invention. On one hand this seems intuitive, but it also seems demeaning to the accomplishments themselves- This need not be the case however, if the accomplishment itself is given proper respect for itself. A gymnast who achieves a performance that she can only pull off once in a hundred tries feels proud OF HER PERFORMANCE, and rightfully so, because that block of space time is special, a precious existence. IE great achievements can make a better universe, even though they do not improve the achievers. It is sheer folly to declare that Darwin was not a great thinker before he thought of evolution, or would not have been a great thinker had he not thought of evolution. Even so, the theory of evolution is, in itself, important.

That said, as a society, it becomes necessary to uplift not only the already successful but also those who are alike to the successful. It is sheer folly, that a person can spend 30 years of his life being considered by society as worthless trash, then, suddenly when that person becomes a multi-millionaire, society turns around and act like it thinks so highly of him. This methodology discards everything holy about wealth and respect, and turns society into a pitiful beggar who will scamper and bow to whoever has power at the moment. In the past, nobles were known to execute enemy knights who would not fight for their own side, even if those knights sided with the very nobility that won the war. The behavior shown by modern society is unbefitting to a virtuous entity. Its methods are designed to empower the society of the moment. It does not serve its people (except those with power, and those with resources.) nor does it lead to a superior future. It panders to those with current power, disregarding the difficulty it lends to their peers or the pain it brings to others. It is a system purely focused on the present.
Of course, that is the expected nature of any system in which status can move quickly. When those with status are always in fear of losing their status, and those without status are always dreaming of receiving it, it means that their value is being judged only in terms of immediate environment. (Note that in America's recent history, extremely rich people and important scientists have been reduced to poverty (bank failure, farm destruction, lots of ways esp in the great depression.) and beloved, successful politicians have been rewritten into vile fiends (Warren Harding))

Others suggest handing out love to all. This sounds good until you realize that the system values a rapist thug on the same level as a olympic gold medalist. IE- in any system of value there must be some method of discrimination. Anything else is just avoiding the question or declaring morality moot. So, ruling out capitalism and communism, one might ask what is left- This forgets that before either system was created we used many other systems. Status can easily be based on character. In the past, this was judged based on how well people could adhere to various rituals and based on lineage. In the modern day we can do better. IQ of course, and other testable personality traits, but that doesn't go far enough. Thus, we must go into the art of character judging. This is, unfortunately, not straightforward. If you just go out and pinpoint people who are like-able and seem cool, you'll end up with a bunch of machiavellian scum. What you can do, is take people who do well in some field (like people who can play a game really well, or can discuss complicated subjects) and equate it to all other fields. Achievements occur when a threshold of power is applied to a measured field. In our modern credential based society, getting even one achievement can take as long as 20 years. This is because we measure a very small range of endeavours- specifically, tasks that have direct relevance to the present. If we expand this range to include irrelevant activities that are equally difficult, we can encompass millions of people who would otherwise fall off the radar. Fortunately, even if we cannot pin G down well, it still exists. People who hold weight in one field will also succeed in a wide range of other fields.



In a ideal nation, the people within should be patriotic. They should love their country because it is good. However, a country is its people- IE, for a patriot, it is not about simply loving a system, but about loving the RESULTS of the system. A successful system, is then one that causes the individuals composing it to be people with value.
So, what then is a valuable person? One need only look at the meaning of value- A valuable person is joyous, glorious, knowledgeable, understanding, powerful and secure. Namely, a beautiful and intelligent girl who is kidnapped at a young age and forced into a prostitution ring is not a valuable individual. She is not joyful, she is not glorious, she knows nothing, she understands nothing, she has no power and is not secure. Such a person should not exist- EVEN THOUGH, by definition, she is a good person.

So I ask, what does America offer? The much proffered slogan is that of freedom, but what does it mean? Are the doctors free, while they treat patients that caused their own injuries and could not in their wildest dreams afford the health care they receive if they had to spend their own money? Are the landlords free, while they rent to occupants they know will trash their homes? Are the teachers free when they bow down to the government in order to receive a job, and the resulting food and housing for themselves and their children? Are the taxpayers free while half their work goes to support a government that they did not create and do not condone? Are the children free when they are forced to go through their rituals for the sake of the public and their desires? Can someone be called free when so many of his actions serve only the purposes of others?
Some would say America is free because everyone has a say in the government. What then of those who do not support anything proffered by either party? Or of those who desire aspects of each party? A vote cast into the abyss of third parties is merely laughed at, whilst a vote given to either party can often be as harmful as beneficial- It's a false choice. There is no answer.

Others would say that America is free because everyone has opportunity. Here, one must take a second look at the meaning of opportunity- that, in the world today only so many people can succeed. One person's success is another person's failure. In a natural economy, this causes the best and most able to defeat those around them, and claim the reins of power for themselves. IE within a natural economy, very few people have opportunity. In order to convert this into a economy wherein everyone has opportunity, you must deny the natural elites the tools that they use to achieve their status. This reduces economics to a simple roulette in disguise. If not by merit, victory must be achieved by luck. Is freedom then, equal opportunity? Is it so frivolous that we can take two people, choose one at random and have him be a master and the other a slave, and declare them both free, due to their level playing field? In essence, a free environment is a fatalistic one, that those who are superior will be superior and, by definition, those who are inferior will be inferior.

Status is, by its nature, relative. By declaring one person better than the other, you also declare the other person inferior to the first. This happens many times, creating the stratification known as class. In a ideal nation, one expects even their worst criminals to be superior to the denizens of other nations, or at least to easily outclass those nation's criminals. As such, a patriotic individual can love his entire people, even while noting that the rapist is inferior to the scientist. In essence, what we need to do is not to eliminate status, but to acknowledge it. Each person should know his place, and should love his place. People should not be exploited because they are weak, nor because they are strong. They should understand their power level, and live harmoniously with their society.

How can this be achieved? Via true freedom- wherein everyone is given enough money to live off of (to include children), in which the nation acknowledges that each person is a part of IT's plan, such that they are all valuable. People who do not have to work if they don't want to, people who are beholden to no-one, that is a free people. However, what is also necessary is not just that people are not forced to take actions, but that they are allowed to fulfill their own wishes. This means, that society must provide a economy wherein people can seek jobs and grant them without foreign interference.

It can be stated that in such an environment, one subgroup could out-compete and destroy another. The evolutionarily superior group will take over in any natural environment- Evolution is, however, not morality. It is not even power. It is only a measure of security within the current frame. As such, a free people, should not be beholden to evolution either. One might expect that the requirements for the above destroy the necessities below. However, this is unneeded. Simply put, people born into this world, do not choose to enter it. They are forced in. By their nature, they force others out. IE, the decision of whether a person should live in a nation, is by its nature, not a free one. A person who only reproduces, forces all the people in the future to follow his will. IE, by doing a evolutionarily superior tactic, you perform violence on society. As such, the evolution of a society must be decided by that society.

However, this would seem rather unfree- Once again it need not be. If a society is not built upon a cross-section of humanity, but is instead designed for a particular populace, everyone within can share in society's dream. Better yet, given appropriate controls for immigration and enough different societies, people can simply move to a society that supports them. IE true freedom is only achievable in harmony with one's nation.

As such, society should be designed, such that everyone is respected as part of the system, wherein anyone can show his true form and be seen within it, and such that power is routed so as to achieve the future dreamed of by that society. Functional actions should not be confused with moral actions. A person who cannot exhibit any use-able skill, but can achieve feats impossible for anyone else, should receive equivalent respect to a great ceo/inventor. He should not, however, receive giant research grants and a business to run.
Note that respect is not just some piddling thing that can be created via ceremonies. Respect is not about fulfilling rituals. It's valuing a person. It's caring about them- not just empathizing with their pain, but in loving their joy. Looking at it that way, it becomes obvious that such a person would not be thrown out of his home and left to starve, nor denied a fitting job, even if it cost society overall.
(even here, such a society does not need to be expensive. 7,000 per person per year would cover all their expenses, and an additional 3,000 per person per year would more than handle military and miscellaneous expenses. that's a little under a fourth of the gdp, and much smaller than the current government. All we really would have to do is drop social security and medicare and distribute the wealth within evenly.)

The Nature of Diversity

In the modern age we receive all sorts of blessings from diversity. While jews teach us to be objective in stories like Atlas Shrugged and Firefly, the Japanese supply us stories that teach us of values and heart, such as Code Geass and Nanoha. With the power supplied by jewish ideas and the purpose ascribed from Japanese ideas, we take the concepts learned from white games such as Heroes 5 or Magic and use them to transform power into results. Diversity isn't just derived from genetics though: just watch Harry Potter in a room air-conditioned by German science, with French made food to observe the power of Culture. Diversity is a valuable resource, and this is to be expected. After all, evolution itself is powered through diversity. Multi-cellular life, and sexual reproduction, the most important milestones in evolution's history, were both designed only to increase diversity.

So, knowing that diversity is a valuable resource, we must next ask just what is diversity and where does it come from. Diversity is not some mineral one can pull up from the earth, nor is it data which can be transmitted freely. It is a enumeration of modes of operation. IE, a diverse AI is one that can change tactics fluidly and come at a player from a multitude of directions. Similarly, if we as humans seek to be a diverse species we must be able to approach a given issue from a multitude of directions. The concept is not difficult- In a game of Megaman, each boss is weak against one weapon and will almost certainly lose if that weapon is used against him. As such sticking to your most powerful weapon will almost certainly lead to defeat, whilst randomly pounding him with a variety of weapons, then letting the one weapon that actually works handle the rest, (even if that weapon is by all standard measurements pathetic) is a far superior tactic. So, as to where it comes from- Genotypes and/or Phenotypes. By definition. It can be expected that it will be impossible to predict all important events over the next 100 years. As such, the only way to have a ideal society built around handling whatever event chain does occur, is to have a ideal society pre-built for each possible time-line. So we back off again, toward the question of just what makes a society.

The answer here is that a society is built upon people living their way of life based on their philosophy. It is to be expected, a computer program that never runs may as well not exist. As such, in order to have the program, one must supply it with the necessary CPU cycles. In the case of societies, it means that the people in it must have control over where they spend their money, how they do their work, how they treat their criminals- IE their government. Diversity is only born from distributing power to multiple groups, not by holding power over multiple different groups. If a white, a black and a jew are forced to work together, they will each have their own interpretation of how the work should get done. As a result, they must come up with a new methodology. Note- A new methodology. Where once the same work would've been achieved in 3 different manners, it will now be completed in one particular manner, IE in a manner that is a compromise between the white, jew and black. This principle extends to national issues- IE if you start with a white, asian, jew, and a criminal X you will find the asian wants criminal punished, that the victim may enjoy having final justice over the perpetrator, the white simply wants to make sure he isn't the next victim, and the jew will want to overlook the crime, and pay the price of having criminals rather than hurting mr. X. Each of these approaches has their merits, and within their own nations would've been implemented into multiple competing systems. However, together the asian will insist that the criminal be punished and the jew will insist he get let off. In the end the criminal will be tortured (for instance, put into a jail cell where his "fellow" inmates will then rape and beat him) (thus making him less viable for civilian activity and more reliant on crime as a way of life) and then released back into the public (with maybe a short delay in order to placate the white.) The asian will not have his justice, the white will not have his safety, nor will the jew get his warmth and love. NO-ONE wins.

It is not unexpected, that if you place two groups in one sphere, there will be one group after a period of time. Genotypes will be weeded out through interbreeding, or by one group out competing the other. Phenotypes will be similarly conglomerated through the natural human processes of tribalism and conformism. (Humans are naturally opposed on an emotional level to anyone who disagrees with them. For similar reasons we naturally fear going against societal norms or holding beliefs that no-one else is willing to recognize.) So one must ask, how we obtained the diversity we enjoy today in the first place. The answer turns out to be physical barriers. Blacks exist because of the Sahara. Asians exist because of the Himalayas . British and Germans have a separate existence because of the English Channel, and other environmental factors. For every genotype or phenotype their is some physical barrier that separates them. Of course with modern technology, these barriers are virtually moot. Those that aren't (such as African disease barriers that whites cannot go through.) will be overturned as technology improves. As such we are steadily moving into 1 shared sphere of influence.

In order to hold onto our cherished diversity, it is thus necessary to create new virtual barriers in lieu of the old ones. It is to be expected that we do not want to overturn the very benefits that we receive from diversity, by cutting off trade, or taking other economic action or by cutting off information flow between groups. That would be like trying to stop global warming by reducing carbon emissions. As such it is better to preserve the barriers we can preserve- IE the governmental ones. Controlling immigration and not giving votes to foreigners is the most obvious application thereof. However, a less obvious one is this- That once two cultures come into conflict, there are only two options: Eliminate one culture or end the conflict. Understand this, that conflict is not only carried out through war. People constantly try to destroy each-other through economics, politics or even sheer reproduction. To end the conflict, each of these issues must also be addressed. Splitting the two groups into two governments, is the most viable answer that addresses these issues- Economics is pacified, since services must be accomplished by the group within its own nation, and since the nation gets a monopoly on its own land and resources. Politics is handled since the voters of one nation cannot effect the citizens of the other nation. Reproduction is settled, since the nations are mono-genetic and mono-phenotic. That said, it is to be expected that between a random X and Y either X will be significantly larger than Y or the reverse. As such, when two nations are split, this almost always means that one small nation is succeeding from the larger whole.

It is to be expected that even with careful border control and political rules, foreign influences will penetrate any group. Since these existences are all geometric (or, another way to put it, is that any non-geometric process will quickly be swamped by exterior forces, only geometric existences can be seen on a four dimensional stage. Anything else, no matter how large in the third dimension, is too small for the naked mind.) the rate of expansion will determine group size in the end. What this means is that the only way to sustain a perpetually diverse environment, the people within the environment must be periodically sorted into their respective groups. The only viable way to achieve this is a right to succession. Larger groups must not be allowed to use force to overpower smaller groups that wish only to be left alone- Even if the smaller group resides within the territory of the larger group. So long as the physical difficulties of supplying the smaller group their required land, resources and military defense can be addressed, nations should slide to their smallest available size.