Preface
I will begin by directing the reader’s attention to the title of this article. I would not blame anyone if their initial interpretation was one where I’m being presumptuous: “what I’m saying is science and you wouldn’t possibly disagree with science, would you?” . This interpretation is a covert appeal to authority and, thus, it is not the sense in which it is meant.
What the title really means: the topic of this article is about the science of admixture, rather than the ethics of it. In other words, political and moral considerations are beyond the scope of this article; I don’t care about those things, nor do I care who (or how many people) the science will offend. My primary objective is to explore an unresearched topic. As such, the claims in this article and its prequel (the “Genes & Mating Systems Simulator“) are purely descriptive and not prescriptive. I am not advocating in favor of or against anything. Instead, I am merely making observations and providing an interpretation for them.
With that said, I will further remind the reader that I am not some 4chan sperg who spews drivel without much thought, nor am I some polygamist trying to justify my lifestyle. As someone who comes from a family of doctors of various kinds, scientific inquiry is a labor of love to me; I have given serious thought and work into this and other topics which are under- or unresearched for 2 reasons I explain below.
There are diminishing returns to exploring a topic. The more the scientific community learns about something, the more questions tend to arise. That, in itself, ensures that there will never be enough resources to know everything about everything. In addition, the questions that do arise tend to be of an evermore focused or narrower scope. As such, science grantors are faced with an economic issue of unscalability. The inevitably narrower scope of the questions will inherently require an ever-increasing cost to answering them. In other words, the potential to economically, intellectually, and culturally benefit from scientific inquiry is greatest the greater its common denominator is. For example, the evolutionary consequence of the Black Death upon immunity genes is an interesting but niche topic which will be cited by an even smaller subset of researchers who concern themselves with even narrower topics. To contrast, there is not a single evolutionary researcher who can avoid relying on Darwin’s theory which was a very fundamental and, therefore, broad topic.
As such, my first reason for the exploration of unchartered scientific territory is that it is the lowest-cost / lowest-effort way to gain fundamental vanguard-tier insight (which will set the stage for its topic’s eventual specialization). Secondly, I believe it to be of utmost importance for the Apollo-sphere to be a vanguard of science, technology, and culture. It can only contribute to Apollo’s dominance if we can take that kind of credit. As I explained in “The Symbolic Language Is Real“, we already can. We need our own Newtons and Darwins.
Hence, the findings related to genetic clusters described in this article and its prequel are a foundational theory which I refer to as “Genetic Invasion Theory” or “GI Theory”; the overarching field of GI Theory can be referred to as genopolemology (the study of gene war). GI Theory is the first theory of genopolemology and, therefore, the de facto vanguard of its field. For more information, please visit the Research Institute of Genopolemology.
GI Theory brings a fundamental understanding to genopolemology – a broad (high-common-denominator) topic that was unexplored until now. I will continue to develop this theory in this opinion hub (as well others in the field of econophysics and memetics) such that, eventually, I will compile and expand upon the relevant posts into formal research papers. The exploration of unchartered scientific territory is how the Apollo-sphere can reliably create and take credit for its own works of genius; more importantly, it is a method by which the Apollo-sphere can raise its innovations per capita – a measure which happens to be used as a proxy for a historical population group’s average intelligence. When innovations per capita reach a certain threshold, the population group is said to be in an intellectual Golden Age. With that said, on to the science.
Genetic Clusters
The subset of genes that are shared by one group but not others is a cluster of genes – a genetic cluster. Families have genes which are unique to them but not to other families; in other words, every family has its own genetic cluster. Similarly, the extended family is a slightly wider genetic cluster, yet still different from other extended families; every extended family also has its own genetic cluster. This principle further applies no matter how inclusive the genetic cluster, including that of classes, ethnicities, subspecies (i.e. races), species, and all the way up the taxonomic hierarchy.
Before we move on to the main topic, ethnic / racial admixture, I will first summarize how mating systems affect genetic clusters in the face of admixture between elites and commoners.
Consequence of Mating Systems on Genetic Clusters
the terms “elite” and “commoner” are not used in a pejorative sense and are not to be interpreted as an indication of moral judgements or as insults against any particular group. Exceptional people – elites – are born good-looking, intelligent, healthy, wealthy, and capable of statecraft, innovation, and institution-building. Typical common people – commoners – are not born that way and this fact has no bearing whatsoever on their moral standing in society; as the research demonstrates, it does have implications for evolutionary outcomes, due to hypergamous female sexual selection – the female sexual preference of elite men.
Women choose which men get to pass on their genes and which men get weeded out of the gene pool. This is an inalienable right of all women and commoner men will simply have to accept and respect women as they are.
Genes & Mating Systems Simulator
The prequel to this article comprises a visual simulator powered by a computer model which tracks generational variations in allele frequencies in the face of admixture. The type of genetic cluster in question was social class: elites and commoners; due to the class-centric focus of the simulator, the frequency of desirable alleles are synonymous to genetic quality in that context. It should be noted that genetic quality ceases to be synonymous with allele frequency in the case where the genetic clusters no longer correspond to classes, and that is why the term will not be used in the analysis of ethnic / racial admixture – Genetic Invasion Theory makes no assumptions about the superiority of a population group over another.
Depending on a number of parameters which can be tweaked directly on the simulator, the model will produce datasets which will vary. One of the most consequential of these parameters was the mating system. For the purposes of this article, I will focus the following summaries on those datasets produced under monogamy and polygyny.
Genetic Consequences of Monogamy, Summarized
we can observe a slow and steady decrease in the genetic quality of the elites (~%40 change over 9 generations) and a slow and steady increase (~7% over 9 generations) in the genetic quality of the commoners, consistent with the weak hypergamy of a monogamous system. There is, therefore, a convergence towards the middle consistent with egalitarian systems in other domains, such as in [socialist] economics.
Genes & Mating Systems Simulator
Arguably, this model might be demonstrating the mechanism that leads to the creation of a genetic middle class. This is not only because of the convergence towards the middle, but also because the founding stock remains mostly intact. Among the elites of this simulated society, there remains a subset of pure-blooded individuals – unmixed descendants of the initial elites [at generation 0, as per the parameters]
Genes & Mating Systems Simulator
Since genetic distance is a strong predictor of social distrust, disorder, and conflict, the growing genetic distance of the founding nucleus and the future generations would predict low ethnocentrism. Since the hostility is anti-elitist in nature, we can credibly say that populism is, therefore, a manifestation of low ethnocentrism
Genes & Mating Systems Simulator
The genetic evidence contradicts the notion that monogamy increases social trust. While there is undoubtedly an immediate short-term ethnocentric benefit to monogamy (due to the reduction of male competition), the inter-generational increase in societal bottom-heaviness leads to a genetic divergence which lessens inward cooperation.
Genes & Mating Systems Simulator
Note: population replacement is still possible in monogamy if the elites can outproduce commoners by a ratio of 4:1. In a society where the underclass has a birth rate of 2 babies per woman, elite women will be required to produce 8 babies who actually make it to fertility age.
Conclusion: we live in a society of people who are monogamous, morally populist, bourgeois-centric, ever-declining in genetic quality, and that strive for mediocrity. Those are not coincidences. Nor are they uninformative in regards to the rise of Christianity & the decline of Rome, given that memes are made by brains made by genes who are subject to selective pressures.
Genetic Consequences of Polygyny, Summarized
we can observe a slow and steady increase in the genetic quality of the elites (< 1% change over 9 generations) and a MAJOR increase (99.99% over 9 generations) in the genetic quality of the commoners
Genes & Mating Systems Simulator
There is, via the intermixing of elite men and commoner women, a new hybrid population being created in each generation with the % of commoner genes being diluted by ~50% every time a new hybrid class is created. The repetitive dilution of commoner genes go hand-in-hand by the genes diluting them, namely elite genes. As the frequency of elite genes increases in the commoner class, a decrease in the genetic distance between commoners and elites will necessarily be observed, thereby leading to an increase in ethnocentrism.
Genes & Mating Systems Simulator
Translation: total population replacement via downward mobility. The elites diluted the commoner gene pool to such a degree that the commoner class of the final generation is almost genetically indistinguishable from the elite class.
Class Admixture
The computer model further gives nuance to prevailing ideas concerning admixture. More precisely, the simulator clearly demonstrates that not all admixture is an evolutionary loss. To the contrary, the (elite) class which sent out excess males to mate with women of a different (commoner) class sexually outcompeted that other class to the point where, after ~8 generations, the offspring is almost indistinguishable from the genetic invader who remains pure-blooded.
In the Apollo-sphere, this process is referred to as population replacement via downward mobility. That terminology is perfectly fine in the context of class-mixing, given the hierarchical implication of class. However, the term “downward mobility” fails to apply in the context of ethnicity and race, except for cases where the ethnic or racial relationship happens to have an element of hierarchy (i.e. when one rules or significantly dominates the other).
Therefore, a more general term which applies to the dilutive admixture of any genetic cluster is “genetic invasion”.
Genetic Invasion Theory
Sexual competition is one avenue by which genetic clusters invade and dominate the other. As the computer model demonstrates, genetic clusters which reliably send out excess males to breed with females of different genetic clusters outcompete genetic clusters who do not. Moreover, polygynous genetic clusters are the only ones who are reliably capable of producing a sufficient number of excess males, so as to successfully dilute other genetic clusters to the point of complete population replacement.
For reference, a genetic invasion does not refer to the ethnogenesis of a permanent hybrid population. Instead, it refers to the consistent generational dilution of a genetic cluster, so as to create an almost genetically identical population to the genetic invader. In other words, Nicolas Cruz is not an example of genetic invasion. If the entirety of the Latino genetic cluster had been diluted to the point of being 99% of European descent, then a modern Latino would simply be a type of European. Nicolas Cruz would be, in this scenario, almost indistinguishable from any other European. The latter is an example of a complete genetic invasion (as opposed to a partial genetic invasion).
Ultimately, the computer model applies to all genetic clusters (not just class) and all genetic clusters are capable of (and vulnerable to) genetic invasion. For example, the visual simulator can easily be edited to change the words “elite” and “commoner” with “Anglo-Saxon” and “Briton”. Does the computer model accurately describe these ethnic groups’ history?
In the case of Germanic migration into England, we have the example of one monogamous genetic cluster, the Anglo-Saxons, sending excess males out of the Germanic gene pool and into the gene pool of another monogamous genetic cluster, the Britons. Furthermore, we know that the relationship between the Anglo-Saxons and Britons became gradually hierarchical when the Britons began to rely on Anglo-Saxon mercenaries for their security needs (in the late Roman period). Following the breakdown of Roman rule, the Anglo-Saxons became the official rulers, in 577 CE. As such, (Briton) female hypergamy would have increasingly sexually favored the Anglo-Saxons, especially once they became the official rulers of England. The scientific literature fully supports the claim that admixture occurred shortly after the initial migrations.
It should be noted that, in practice, no genetic cluster is strictly monogamous. It would be more accurate to describe a quasi-monogamous mating system as serial monogamy which is one form of polygamy. Typically, instances of non-monogamy within officially monogamous genetic clusters consist of either remarriage (due to the death of a spouse or divorce), infidelity, or pre-marital fornication. It should also be noted that due to the historical mortality rates of female pregnancies and the comparatively more adulterous nature of males, serial monogamy tends to be predominantly polygynous. Nevertheless, such instances of polygyny would not be common practice in a genetic cluster that is officially monogamous.
With that in mind, the Briton and Anglo-Saxon genetic clusters were officially monogamous, but practiced (an overwhelmingly polygynous) serial monogamy in a minority of cases. However, the hypergamous preference of Briton females would predict that excess Anglo-Saxon males would have been the ones diluting the Briton gene pool, and not the other way around. Moreover, we also know via the assortative mating patterns of Anglo-Saxons that the most lowborn of the Anglo-Saxon elite would have been the excess males and they would have been mating with the most highborn Briton females. This is consistent with the mate selection algorithm of the computer model. Is the genetic profile generated by the computer model, under monogamous mode, consistent with the genetic profile of the modern English population?
Dilution of the Anglo-Saxon Cluster
Supported by Limited Empirical Evidence
A Briton / Anglo-Saxon hybrid is necessarily of a closer genetic distance to a pure-blooded Anglo-Saxon than a pure-blooded Briton. In the genetic hierarchy, this places hybrids further up than the Britons and necessarily implies a minor dilution of the genetic top 20% of Anglo-Saxon England over many generations. This is supported by the computer model which demonstrates a 40% dilution of elite genes in the top 20% over 9 generations, in monogamous mode.
Due to the marital rules of the Anglo-Saxon Nobility, it can only be the case that the initial migrant elite preserved its genetic purity; this is consistent with the data interpretation of the computer model which demonstrates that, despite the dilution of the top 20%, the initial genetic nucleus remains intact. Unfortunately, this is as close as we can get to the genetic profile of the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, given that the Norman conquest resulted in its mass emigration from England; we literally cannot locate the individuals whose genetic profiles are needed for analysis. Nevertheless, the genetic profile of today’s English commoners are highly informative.
Dilution of the Briton Cluster
Fully Supported by Empirical Evidence
The higher position of male hybrids in the genetic hierarchy predicts that female Briton hypergamy would have favored them above pure-blooded Briton males. This is supported by the evidence that, in the historically Anglo-Saxon territories of England, the modern English are on average 38% Anglo-Saxon and range from 25% to 50% Anglo-Saxon admixture. In other words, there are no pure-blooded Britons left in the lower and middle classes, just as the computer model predicts of the fate of the commoner class.
Furthermore, let’s assume 500 years of pure-blooded Anglo-Saxon presence from the day of the migration to the day they were expelled. That implies a Germanification rate (i.e. genetic dilution rate) of the Briton genetic cluster of 0.076% per year. By process of extrapolation, an Anglo-Saxon presence lasting 1032 years would have resulted in the “Britons” sharing 99% of their genes with the Anglo-Saxon cluster. By then, the so-called Britons would have effectively become pure-blooded Anglo-Saxons. Once again, the computer model’s accuracy is demonstrated; after a sufficient number of generations, the commoner class is genetically almost identical to the elite class.
Populism as Low Ethnocentrism
The Norman Conquest
The Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity in 588, 11 years after their dominion over the Christian Britons. As one would predict, a change in social attitudes naturally followed. One of the most significant of these were the rejection of ancestral gods in favor of a Semitic god thereby evidencing low negative ethnocentrism, and the adoption of slave morality whose anti-authoritarian nature is inherently to the detriment of inward cooperation and trust of elites. The latter 2 are evidence of low positive ethnocentrism.
The Normans were known as an elitist, militaristic, and legalistic population group who eventually were inwardly cooperative enough to administer large swaths of European territory under their rule; this is evidence of high positive ethnocentrism. Similarly, their near-total elimination of the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy is further evidence of high negative ethnocentrism. Arguably, Norman primogeniture could also be thought of as an expression of negative ethnocentrism, given that it is ultimately a social descent of the more genetically mutated (and, therefore, more genetically distant) members of the genetic cluster.
By contrast, the populist (i.e. Catholic) Anglo-Saxons did not demonstrate as high a degree of ethnocentrism. As the prevailing research predicts, the more ethnocentric group subjugated the less ethnocentric group. While it is true that the Normans were also Catholics at the time of England’s conquest, it was ultimately the Anglo-Saxons who practiced what they preached to a much greater extent.
For example, the Anglo-Saxons were much less expansionist. In fact, it was a petty nationalist ideal which (mostly) sought to merely defend its territory from Vikings and Celts. Moreover, it is known that Anglo-Saxon culture was not (or was significantly less) patriarchal. Lastly, slavery was significantly less common. Evidently, the Anglo-Saxons were truer to the message of Christianity than the Normans.
In any case, the Norman conquest is consistent with the computer model’s implications regarding the creation of a genetic middle-class and the rise of populism as a manifestation of low ethnocentrism. The Anglo-Saxon / Briton hybrids did eventually constitute a genetic middle-tier of their society and would have ultimately had the first-pick of Briton females (second only to the Anglo-Saxon pure-bloods). It is further supported by the literature that whenever you have a collective of young low-status and sexually undesirable males, they do tend to coalesce around their resentment of elites into anti-social gangs. Among young Briton males, this would be indicative of Anglo-Saxon England’s low social trust (particularly the distrust of elites) and low inward cooperation (namely anti-authoritarian and rebellious attitudes – the refusal to comply with orders or norms).
Therefore, the historical evidence supports the computer model’s association between the growth of a genetic cluster’s bottom heaviness with low social trust and inward cooperation, both of which are populist behaviors and simultaneously facets of (low) positive ethnocentrism.
Conclusion
In addition to demonstrating the accuracy of the computer model, the analysis above shows that the very desirable process of population replacement via downward mobility is applicable to all genetic clusters – not just class. It is just as much an evolutionary benefit (to the genetic invader) for an elite cluster to invade the commoner cluster, as it is for an ethnic or racial cluster to invade another.
When an elite engages in genetic invasion, the Apollo-sphere considers it beneficial. But when an ethnic or racial group engages in genetic invasion, oh gosh no that’s admixture. If you have some moral qualms about this practice, fine – but that’s beyond the realm of science. There is no need to invent pseudo-science to justify your desired “ought”.
Any argument against admixture is discredited when it is founded on falsehoods. With the information above, one can still be against admixture on moral grounds. However, one cannot compare genetic invasion to “creating a million Nicolas Cruz’s” and then say that like it is, in any way, an intelligent argument against genetic invasion. Similarly, the claim that genetic invasion is an evolutionary loss is simply incorrect. The copying and proliferation of a genetic cluster cannot, by definition, be a negative to the cluster; otherwise, why have any babies at all?
The information herein can be used in favor of or against the moral case for genetic invasion. Moral objections will never disprove Genetic Invasion Theory. GI Theory will never make an ethical case for genetic invasions. Whichever discussion you want to have (i.e. scientific or ethical), you must base your scientific or ethical argument on truthful information. Given that GI Theory is genopolemology’s foundational theory, the majority of that truthful information will be found in this article and in its prequel for the time being (i.e. until other researchers expand on the topic).
