Morality

During the vast majority of man's existence on this earth, matters of morality were irrelevant. When one tribe met another, the stronger, or cleverer, or more numerous, won out. This was the normal state of affairs.

Eventually population numbers grew too high and the equilibrium fell apart. The weak now had the impetus to demand protection, and others stepped up to offer them protection in return for labor. Many times it was codified in writing, much like a modern contract - a very rational, free-market exchange.

What wasn't rational was when people started assuming this code to be some overarching, potent theme, a entity of its own. Those who abode by the contract saw themselves as Lawful, or Just, or even Pious, and those terms became personified as objectively "good". Now, all of a sudden, people who benefited their relatives at the expense of the distantly related were ostracized for not abiding by the completely arbitrary "law", despite the fact that there were obvious, and entirely basic proofs that no objective punishments existed for breaking it. A lot of lawful people die young, or poor, or whatever, while a lot of psychopaths and criminals get all they want out of life. To address this obvious fault, wishful thinkers came up with the idea that you get judged after death by some divine entity...

They started indoctrinating their kids into these beliefs from a young age, and those kids grew up to be the next generation's community leaders. Eventually this artificial social construct became a Golden Calf in the minds of the people, imbued with all sorts of significance and religious (thus unquestionable) origins.

Flash forward a few millennia. Religious thought and sentiment is nearly dead in the west, yet people continue to harp on about these topics. Nowadays, you've got social justice, and egalitarianism, and all sorts of other bullshit ideas. Post-modernism deconstructed them, it proved beyond a doubt that they are culturally relative, yet here they are, kicking on, like zombies that don't know they're dead.

This is mainly because the current ruling ideology is founded on the axiom of egalitarianism. Since everyone's equal, you can't benefit your folks at the expense of the rest, if something applies to X it's got to apply to Y, and if you disagree you're a bigoted bastard. To get anywhere in life you have to profess that belief, at least in public, because its adherents have carefully framed the Overton Window to exclude anything that doesn't sync up with their school of thought. Most westerners go their whole lives hearing variations on this same damn theme in school, seeing it on the telly, reading it in books, and so on. It's sad, but not surprising, that they actually believe what they're told, like the Japanese in World War II or North Koreans today. Neither are they cognizant that this trend is present, no more than a fish is of the water it swims in. They suffer from the illusion of choice.

So it has come to pass that morality is still a thing today. The terminology's changed; instead of denouncing other people's business as "savage" or "barbaric," the preferred terms nowadays range from "not okay" on one side of the judging-other-people-meter to "sexist" or "racist" on the other; the more emotional words tend to come out when the behavior of other people toes up against some pressing issue in the west, like female circumcision, which only gets lambasted because it intersects with feminism.

Even philosophers, who you'd expect to know better, continue to defend ideas like justice and morality, couching them in terms of a "social contract" or "veil of ignorance" to magic away the religious roots of it all. Elizabeth Anscombe succinctly criticized ninety percent of modern philosophies when she noted that, "as secular approaches to moral theory, they are without foundation. They use concepts such as ‘morally ought,’ ‘morally obligated,’ ‘morally right,’ and so forth that are legalistic and require a legislator as the source of moral authority. In the past God occupied that role, but systems that dispense with God as part of the theory are lacking the proper foundation for meaningful employment of those concepts."

We can address these issues by cogent use of Hume's Guillotine - dropping the "ought" for the "is." What we can directly observe about the world and the general state of living beings is that they live to reproduce: everything else is but a means to that end.

If furthering your lineage involves doing something that violates someone's morals or feelings, so be it. Ensuring the propagation of our genetic material is our goal in life; the rest is, in the words of Qoheleth, "meaningless, a chasing after the wind."

An Introduction

Ethnarchism is a new philosophy but it is by far the oldest.

It is new in that it has never yet been described or put into a philosophical context.

But it is also ancient since it seeks to achieve that one goal of Life since its inception: the duty to survive, prosper, and reproduce. By our deeds and careful planning, we must ensure the continuous repetition of the cycle and thus of our genetic lineage. This is the psychologist's "Biological Imperative".

Of course our genes are found not only in ourselves and our own children but also in our siblings, cousins, and more distant relatives, and even in those farther yet from us, with whom we still share common descent. Thus ethnarchism emphasis the bond we share with our ethnos, bound together not by language or custom but by blood, contra Herodotus. Implicit in this is the rejection of any kind of civic nationalism or ideological brotherhood. 

The general conclusions of ethnarchism can be outlined very quickly, and many of the conclusions you'll come to are completely straighforward and commonsensical, once the premise is accepted. How to implement them in modern life is a much more complex topic; dealing with these considerations will be the main purpose of this blog.