{"id":1770,"date":"2024-01-14T17:44:02","date_gmt":"2024-01-14T17:44:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/?p=1770"},"modified":"2025-10-24T16:44:34","modified_gmt":"2025-10-24T15:44:34","slug":"the-difference-between-a-universal-basic-income-and-a-national-dividend-2-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/?p=1770","title":{"rendered":"a new future for the west"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Everyone today is familiar with the theory of evolution, the idea that all life on Earth slowly evolved from a universal common ancestor around 3 billion years ago. Life evolved for billions of years, slowly yielding higher and higher forms until mammals, primates, and, eventually, humans appeared. According to this theory, humans separated from chimpanzees about 5 million years ago, and anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago. Contemporary evolution theory tends to overlook the fact that we are still evolving. According to the “out of Africa” theory, 300,000 years ago, we were a uniform group of cavemen living in Africa. Since that time, we have evolved into many distinct racial types. Yes, we are still evolving, and race is the evolutionary unit. Each race is a subspecies; if this process is not interrupted, each race type will eventually evolve into a separate species. <\/span>The current trend, of course, is racial convergence instead of racial divergence, so the future here <\/span>is a little murky<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>

In addition to biological evolution, many people today believe humans are evolving spiritually. The idea is that the evolution of life is the evolution of consciousness itself and that it evolves from a simple form to higher and higher forms. This line of thought has a long history with philosophers, from Plato in ancient Greece to Hegel to today’s “new age<\/span>“<\/span> philosophers. Modern thinkers such as Claire Graves or Ken Wilber describe many different levels used to gauge human consciousness or awareness. There are many different models and levels of development, but these levels boil down to three groups: self, group, and above group.<\/span><\/p>

Humans at the self-level are concerned with, well, themselves. Power and success for themselves are their primary motivation in life. The well-being of other people does not generally concern them. Groups of people at the self-level do not form solid states or strongly organized religions. Small tribes are the best they can muster. <\/span><\/p>

To be considered at a higher level, one must include the levels below and, in addition, do something else they can’t. So, people at the group consciousness level are concerned with themselves as individuals, plus the well-being of what they consider their group. They can form solid nationalities or religious groups. The group they identify with might be their country, race, religion, or almost anything else. They are not typically concerned with anything outside what they perceive as their group. An example of a people at this level might be the Chinese. The Chinese are concerned with the well-being of China, but this concern ends at the Chinese border.<\/span><\/p>

At the above group level, people are concerned with themselves as individuals, whatever group(s) they identify with, and in addition, show consciousness of and sympathy for things outside of their group. Individuals at this level might show concern for ethnicities not their own, the treatment of domesticated animals, saving endangered species, or even the health of the Earth itself. <\/span>This attitude has <\/span>not<\/span> been around <\/span>long<\/span> and is new in history.<\/span> That’s what makes it so unique. <\/span><\/p>

What type of states do people at the “above group<\/span>“<\/span> level form? That’s a good question. Since this attitude is so new, we have yet to find a functioning model. <\/span>Western countries where this view is <\/span>common<\/span> are<\/span> currently <\/span>webs of confusion<\/span>.<\/span> They <\/span>have no<\/span> clear view of what they are doing or their direction.<\/span> Individuals at the higher levels are sacrificing themselves for and replacing themselves with people at the lower levels. Unless we find a solution, this higher consciousness will self-extinguish and amount to a brief aberration in history. The point of this essay is to suggest a proper direction for people at the above group level to follow.<\/span><\/p>

So here we have two ideas. The first is biological evolution, and the second is spiritual evolution. Are they both correct? What if we agree that man is evolving spiritually and that race is the evolutionary unit? What would the spiritual evolution of different races look like? The answer is unknown because no one has ever studied this, at least not comprehensively. One way to address this problem might be to view history from the consciousness perspective. If we could identify the first occurrence of this above group thinking, then we might be able to trace it through history. Looking at history with this view in mind, we see that humanity has been at the group level for a long time. Since the advent of states around 4000 years ago, man has thought at the group level. Today, the vast majority of humans are probably at this level.<\/span><\/p>

The first occurrence of above-group thinking appears to be the beginning of natural science. Natural science began in the 13th century with Roger Bacon. Once this science gained <\/span>a modicum of<\/span> popularity, the catholic church quickly forbade it. It took three whole centuries before the church finally lessened its grip. Once this happened, science promptly took off, resulting in the modern technological world. Before this, there was Greek natural philosophy, which was different. With this philosophy, the Greeks would observe nature for \u2013 maybe five minutes \u2013 then immediately launch into theory. It was all theory and speculation and no investigation or discovery. No patience was needed for natural philosophy, while <\/span>enormous patience was <\/span>needed<\/span> for natural science. Natural philosophy and all other pursuits in previous civilizations \u2013 architecture, religion, philosophy, mathematics \u2013 were all human-centered.<\/span><\/p>

Natural science was different in that it was the wholesale investigation of nature. It was the first large-scale occurrence of above-group thinking. Many of the first scientists devoted their entire lives to studying nature. There was no imaginable benefit for themselves or their group that could come from their experiments. It was the opposite; many paid a terrible price for their efforts. They could not foresee in their wildest dreams the results of their investigations. Their only possible motivation was the desire for knowledge. They had just become obsessed with understanding nature and could not help themselves. It is essential to realize that all experiments were accessible at the beginning of natural science, as <\/span>no special equipment or knowledge was needed<\/span>. The scientists invented their apparatus as they moved along. <\/span><\/p>

Anyone could have carried out these experiments. Any clever Greek, Arab, Chinaman, or even African could have pursued these experiments, but none of them did. They didn’t because there was no perceivable benefit from studying nature \u2013 it made no sense. All questions could be answered by reading the bible, the Koran, etc. To look at nature for answers was just blasphemy. Pursuing this line of study took a fascination with nature \u2013 a fascination these people lacked. Unlike today’s scientists, the early natural scientists were thinking at the above group level. There is no other explanation for their behavior.<\/span><\/p>

What was the racial type of these individuals who devoted their lives to investigating nature? If we look at their background, we see they all, with apparently no exceptions, come from a culture that was created by and dominated by the Nordic race type.[1]<\/span> Looking at their racial features, we see that most of them conform to the Nordic racial type. If we look at the few who don’t (southern and eastern European types), we see they always came from the most Nordic part of the country they were living in. This fact strongly suggests their Nordic neighbors influenced their behavior.<\/span><\/p>

To demonstrate this, let’s briefly examine one of the least Nordic countries that participated in the beginnings of science \u2013 Italy. From the 6th to the 10th centuries, Italy was invaded\/populated by Germanic tribes from the north. These tribes settled in northern and central Italy but never reached as far south as Rome in any numbers. One exceptionally gifted tribe, the Lombards, originated in Scandinavia and settled most thickly around Florence in Tuscany. At their peak, these German tribes probably comprised no more than 20 percent of Italy’s total population. In upper Italy and Tuscany, they may have reached 50 percent of the population.<\/span><\/p>

In his 1905 book “The Germans in the Italian Renaissance,<\/span>“<\/span> Ludwig Woltmann examines the racial characteristics of 200 historical “geniuses<\/span>“<\/span> of the Italian Renaissance. Of the 150 where he had enough evidence, he determined 130 were Nordic or mostly Nordic in racial type. The other 20 <\/span>he<\/span> describes as Nordic hybrids. He did not find a single pure Mediterranean type in the group. He also examined the racial characteristics of each region in Italy and compared them to the number of geniuses produced. He found a direct correlation between Nordic racial traits and the number of geniuses produced in the area. In his label “geniuses,<\/span>“<\/span> Woltmann includes everything from painters to explorers, so admittedly, “genius<\/span>“<\/span> does not equal scientist, but the ratio should be the same.<\/span><\/p>

In its article on Italian scientists, Wikipedia lists 31 notable scientists from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance <\/span>period<\/span>. Of these, 27 were from upper Italy, where the Nordic tribes comprised the aristocracy and a good percentage of the population, and only four were from southern Italy. These scientists, whatever their racial type, were influenced by the Nordic element in northern Italy rather than the Mediterranean element in southern Italy. <\/span><\/p>

If we look at the first natural scientists, <\/span>we find<\/span> they had at least three things in common. First, they came from a culture created and dominated by the Nordic race type; second, we see the vast majority conformed to this type; and third, we see a disproportionate share of them came from the nobility or upper class. <\/span>This<\/span> was true for Italy as well as the rest of Europe. Woltmann also investigated 250 historical “geniuses<\/span>“<\/span> in France. His findings were the same as those of Italy: the vast majority were of a Nordic type, and almost all were from the areas in France where the Nordics were most populous. He also found that 34 percent were from the French nobility, while the nobility comprised less than 1 percent of the population. Again, “genius<\/span>“<\/span> here does not equal natural <\/span>scientist<\/span>, but the ratio should be the same.<\/span><\/p>

In summary, as soon as the large migrations\u2013with their endless wars\u2013settled down, and as soon as the church would permit it\u2013as soon as circumstances would allow it\u2013Europe became obsessed with studying nature. <\/span>It was not<\/span> all Europeans <\/span>that<\/span> did this, however, but <\/span>specifically<\/span> the Nordic element.<\/span> All other elements played a supplementary role. There was no self or group interest in their actions, but simply a desire to know what made nature tick. The result of this is the modern technological world we all live in today. The beginning of natural science is probably the first large-scale occurrence of above-group thinking in history. This fascination with nature \u2013 the driving force behind the beginning of science \u2013 can even be seen today in the Nordic peoples. Outdoor recreation, in which the only reward is the observation of nature, such as hiking, camping, bird-watching, or scuba diving, is mainly pursued by Nordic types in cultures dominated by the Nordic type.<\/span><\/p>

It was also the Nordic type who, for better or worse, developed the ideas of modern liberalism. Liberal ideas began in European countries where the Nordic element was dominant, particularly England. The motivation of these liberal pioneers is somewhat murky, though. The aim of these individuals might <\/span>be construed<\/span> as self-interest, group interest, or above-group, just depending on the circumstances. One subject that should clarify motivations is the history of slavery and its abolition. Almost all human groups practiced slavery at some time in their history. From Asia to Africa and America, slavery has <\/span>been widely practiced<\/span>. While virtually all human groups have been equally guilty of practicing it, not everyone has been equally responsible for ending it. The abolition of slavery appears to be the distinct accomplishment of the Nordic race. The first movement to end slavery started in Great Britain and the United States in the late 1700s. (It goes without saying that the Nordic element was dominant in these two countries at the time).<\/span><\/p>

Great Britain passed the first law making slavery illegal in 1772. Great Britain and the US outlawed the international slave trade in 1807. Most of the Nordic-dominated countries where slavery <\/span>was practiced<\/span> had ended it by the early 1800s. South America followed suit in the mid-1800s. The rest of the world generally ended slavery from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. At the time, many of these nonwhite countries were envious of Western progress and devised plans to modernize(read \u2013 catch up to the West). Since Britain and France preferred not to trade with countries that practiced slavery, ending it necessarily became part of these countries’ plans for modernization.<\/span><\/p>

In other words, most countries only ended slavery under pressure from the West. If you look at the racial type of the leading abolitionists, you’ll find two types \u2013 Nordic and African. The motivation of the ex-slaves was obviously self or group interest. The motivation of the Nordics <\/span>was mostly above-group<\/span> interest. <\/span><\/p>

While some of the first abolitionists might have had self or group interests, the majority of them were concerned with the fate of the enslaved people themselves. There was no financial or social reward for them to do this. None of them ever made a penny by agitating for the end of slavery. Nor did they consider the enslaved Africans as part of their group. They had no intention of socializing with, acting like, or mating with formerly enslaved Africans. Such was unthinkable at the time. <\/span>They <\/span>simply<\/span> wanted to end the <\/span>slaves’<\/span> suffering.<\/span> The behavior of the first abolitionists (namely Quakers and Puritans in Great Britain and the United States) was altruism directed towards people outside their group. It was clearly above group thinking, <\/span>and<\/span> the race type doing it was Northern European as opposed to Southern or Eastern European. <\/span>If<\/span> we examine the beginnings of the end of <\/span>slavery<\/span>, we find that:<\/span><\/p>