Have you ever read any of the Icelandic sagas? They start out by giving you the family history of the leads. The reason for this is simple. Certain families had certain traits. Some were known hotheads, some peacemakers, some just unlucky. You would have an idea of how things would go, just from that family history. Of course, no one now really wants to know about their ancestors.
Of course and even today this is obvious, but you see this in Rome as well with certain family names carrying certain reputations. But as far as the genetics of it goes, the effect of this is rapidly diluted with each generation. The only way out is if a family carefully curates who reproduces and with whom as a selective breeding project, and you really only see this in the aristocratic classes.
If people want to get back more than a few hundred years, a different toolkit is needed
> Counterintuitive to conventional political understanding, it has been the right's philosophy which has employed collective understandings, nested within the laws of nature rather than ideology. It has been the left who, now increasingly, demands the primacy of the individual above all other individuals and combinations thereof
Both sides of the left/right divide have contributed to ideas of collectivism and individualism for their own purposes.
In left wing circles collectivist ideas typically center around the need to provide for positive rights and to prevent naturally successful people/groups from undermining their universal equality. Their individualist ideas tend to focus on securing enough power to undermine natural hierarchies.
On the right, collectivist ideas are more focussed on the pragmatic need to cooperate to protect negative rights and allow natural communities to prosper. Whereas individualist ideas are more focussed on delimiting collectivism and preventing tyrants from enslaving the community.
In both schools of thought both collectivism and individualism are necessary and useful albeit for different purposes. Neither one can be exclusively blamed or credited with either.
Not aware of any single book on this topic I'd endorse since it's so politically charged, but you may enjoy WD Hamilton's works on inclusive fitness/kin selection as a related topic. Also "Price of Altruism" by Oran Harman for biography on George Price who also worked on inclusive fitness.
Selfish Gene is also incredibly good for introductory level if you haven't read it already
There is also the minor matter of the fact that most mutations come from the father’s sperms as he get older. (A reason why parents should marry at 19-25). Also, only around 40% of men ever become the fathers. This also narrows the range of genetic diversity as well.
Ancestry is also cultural, one feels closer to the ancestors when he is surrounded by their works, be they art, techniques, stories and anything else
Absolutely. But people avoid this argument thinking it's less significant than genes, so I try to keep it in the latter category here
That's why I mention the etymology of culture, because it often relates to living things. The culture of a people is a living tapestry.
Have you ever read any of the Icelandic sagas? They start out by giving you the family history of the leads. The reason for this is simple. Certain families had certain traits. Some were known hotheads, some peacemakers, some just unlucky. You would have an idea of how things would go, just from that family history. Of course, no one now really wants to know about their ancestors.
Of course and even today this is obvious, but you see this in Rome as well with certain family names carrying certain reputations. But as far as the genetics of it goes, the effect of this is rapidly diluted with each generation. The only way out is if a family carefully curates who reproduces and with whom as a selective breeding project, and you really only see this in the aristocratic classes.
If people want to get back more than a few hundred years, a different toolkit is needed
I still feud with some race-traitor Campbells, and have close racially aware Cameron friends. The apple rarely falls far from the tree.
Great essay. Just one small objection...
> Counterintuitive to conventional political understanding, it has been the right's philosophy which has employed collective understandings, nested within the laws of nature rather than ideology. It has been the left who, now increasingly, demands the primacy of the individual above all other individuals and combinations thereof
Both sides of the left/right divide have contributed to ideas of collectivism and individualism for their own purposes.
In left wing circles collectivist ideas typically center around the need to provide for positive rights and to prevent naturally successful people/groups from undermining their universal equality. Their individualist ideas tend to focus on securing enough power to undermine natural hierarchies.
On the right, collectivist ideas are more focussed on the pragmatic need to cooperate to protect negative rights and allow natural communities to prosper. Whereas individualist ideas are more focussed on delimiting collectivism and preventing tyrants from enslaving the community.
In both schools of thought both collectivism and individualism are necessary and useful albeit for different purposes. Neither one can be exclusively blamed or credited with either.
Please take a look at my Substack and consider cross-recommending. Keep up the good work.
I invite you to read my essay An Indictment of Life for a radically different perspective on ancestor veneration.
Well written, I’ve been looking for something like this. Saved. Any recommended books on this subject ?
Not aware of any single book on this topic I'd endorse since it's so politically charged, but you may enjoy WD Hamilton's works on inclusive fitness/kin selection as a related topic. Also "Price of Altruism" by Oran Harman for biography on George Price who also worked on inclusive fitness.
Selfish Gene is also incredibly good for introductory level if you haven't read it already
There is also the minor matter of the fact that most mutations come from the father’s sperms as he get older. (A reason why parents should marry at 19-25). Also, only around 40% of men ever become the fathers. This also narrows the range of genetic diversity as well.
Interesting, thanks.