Occult Nature of Power Briefly Introduced and Challenged by Free Thought
Wisdom is something that has long faced repression. Perhaps originating among the ancient Sumerians, Phoenicians, or Egyptians among the priesthood and within professional’s cults, scientific reasoning became an open staple of ancient Greek philosophy, some say beginning with Thales. The Greeks had followed after the Phoenician Sanchuniathon, who had disclosed the esoteric secret that religion was an allegorical-symbolical way to understand Nature, and that the gods were merely personifications of natural phenomena. The reason for the esotericism predating the Greeks likely has to do with two things: the wise are often hated and must at times hide themselves from the angry mob’s jealousy and ignorance—as Socrates would later discover—, and the shadows can be a place from which to leverage and maintain power secretly. Probably, secret societies or mystery schools of the sort had their origins primarily in well-intentioned wise men who found a way to relate with one another with minimal disturbance to their peerage, with these groups later corrupted by elements less than sincere or benevolent naively allowed among them, though the origins could also have entailed something more dastardly. Time has not yet told her secret.
By the time of Sanchuniathon, organized religions and their priestly classes had established states from out of such associations. States, or governments, which are characterized by unilateral and monocentric law, are perpetrators of natural crime, or mala in se crime, which is harm that is objectively witnessed, and thereby establish themselves as monopolies on legitimate violence by which to protect their illegitimate violence. States are likely to have arisen from out of Satanic cults that have existed since the Stone Age, which the psychohistory of Lloyd deMause and others have started to uncover, and which has long been associated with human sacrifice, cannibalism, and ritualistic abuse of children. Such individuals must have been ailed by some variety of character disturbance or character disorder, such as narcissism, psychopathy, sociopathy, or factitiousness. From out of their jealousy for the wise, who were naïve enough to admit them and to fall to their manipulations, and wielding the ignorance of the angry mob, they wrestled positions originating in prestige and honor and calcified them into positions of “authority” and control. Not having the capacity to contribute their own insights—because not having them—they typically relied instead on the traditions as already-accepted, using innovation mainly to tie together disparate groups. They used ritualistic human sacrifice to establish a public, or cultural entourage surrounding their claims of superhuman qualities, and since the Neolithic, if not since Homo antecessor, have done this.
The Greeks would continue to practice statecraft, but beginning with Solon, the city-state of Athens would shift from a monarchy toward an oligarchic or aristocratic direct-democracy. This was the beginning of the reversal of a trend toward power-centralization that had begun with the development of simple horticulture and the habitual use of digging sticks to establish crops, as Patrick Nolan and Gerhard Lenski have suggested, but which would not become a dominant force until the time of the Enlightenment. This trend continued from its Neolithic and Chalcolithic origins into the Iron Age, where it became the most pronounced, fostering the development not only of kings but of emperors, who called themselves Sons of God. That is , while horticultural people of the Late Stone Age and Copper Age or early Bronze Age were ruled not by tribal heads but by societies of warriors or groups of elders who composed an oligarchy or aristocracy, the late Bronze Age and the Iron Age saw the concentration of power into the hands of singular families and heads of state. Behind these actions were esoteric efforts to establish and maintain that power through royal and imperial cults. The Greeks had reversed this in their partially-tolerant and secularizing society by openly practicing natural philosophy in semi-meritocratic schools of learning, building upon not only the poet-historians but also the wise men who fell short of philosophy simply by lacking rigorous logic, but who were nonetheless grounded in common sense and objective reality. In places like Egypt, such men had been exemplified by Ptahhotep. Among the ancient Israelites, wise men were exemplified by the authors of the Poetic Books of the Bible. And among the Greeks they were exemplified by the Seven Sages. Still, common sense wisdom and especially philosophy was only tolerated so far, even among the Greeks, as the life of Socrates, who came up against the cults of Athens, demonstrates.
There have been religious, philosophical, and scientific challenges made to occulted power, each relying on deoccultation but often relying themselves on associational secrecy. Those who did not maintain their secrecy well enough, and who were bold enough to speak their mind, might become martyred or excommunicated or etc., becoming famed men and women of conscience. Socrates, for instance and to elaborate, would be forced to drink hemlock. He had been accused for impiety after defending the divine source of his own conscience, praising wisdom over materialism, and denying in a Zoroastrian or Atenist-like fashion that the gods did evil or wrong things in the manner of mortal humans. But he would not be the last, and was surely not the first. Jesus, who had come against the interest of the bankster Pharisees, and had taught the Golden Rule, was hung on a cross. Marguerite Porete, after writing of annihilating oneself in Love or God; Jan Hus, who dared to suggest that The Church was not the clergy, but the community of believers in Christ; and Giordano Bruno, who suggested that the stars were all suns having their own planets with life on them; were all burned at the stake, suffering horribly painful, frightening, and lonesome deaths in the flames. Galileo, who had dared to defend insights from Copernicus and Tycho Brahe against the lingering geocentric views of Aristotle and Ptolemy, was placed under house arrest. Spinoza, who echoed Bruno in suggesting that all of Nature, taken as a whole, is identifiable with God, was excommunicated and had his books banned. Galileo, especially, but also Spinoza, are lucky not to have met the wrath of the Inquisition, as Galileo preceded Bruno and Bruno was the last major martyr to die by the flames, Spinoza having come not too long after. Each was telling us something important about being alive in the world, but for these statements of conscience, each of these mystics, theologians, philosophers, and scientists were harshly punished. I most certainly did not name a comprehensive list, either.
Enlightenment, Modernity, and Modernism
When modernity struck with the efforts of Grotius, the mainline of the Scientific Revolution was formalized by figures such as Renes Descartes, Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton; and the Enlightenment hit with those like Spinoza, John Locke, and Montesquieu; the major focus was turned from religious Reformation and Renaissance efforts toward modern political ones that would protect the rights of both the religious and the scientific to have freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of property, freedom of exchange, freedom of association, and so on, and thereby to ensure and protect their rights to believe as arguments persuade them to and their own conscience directs them to in a way that liberal monarchs and aristocrats had failed to do during mercantilism and before the Enlightenment. The middle class of Europe had begun to formalize efforts to establish their own areas of sovereignty or enfranchisement through colonies and corruptible republics of their own creation. The Mayflower had followed the publicization of the “New World” after Christopher Columbus’s voyage was inspired by the travels of Marco Polo and others, with the onslaught of emigration it inspired culminating eventually in the American Revolution, which would instigate similar systems across the entire world.
For some time, the new social environment of modernity brought on by the new ruling class and emerging upper class— now the ex-middle class— of Europe, empowered by the Moderate Enlightenment ideals of liberal republicanism, was conducive to Enlightenment values to some extent or another, promoting the idea even if not the action of the various freedoms mentioned. And within this environment continued efforts from the original, true Enlightenment, the Radical Enlightenment, which had been partially corrupted into the standard Enlightenment— the Moderate Enlightenment—, and which was favorable to the artisan and peasant classes. From among the continuing Radical Enlightenment milieu, a criticism of the capitalist nature of the Enlightenment from within the Enlightenment— on the grounds that the Enlightenment had failed to continue with its promise—, was brewing, which was to become associated with the emerging modernism, exemplified by early liberal and libertarian socialism. This modernism is not to be confused with the Modernism of the fin de siècle, later associated with postmodernism, which had actually grown from out of the Radical Counter-Enlightenment. This modernism was, instead, largely a continuation of the Radical Enlightenment from within the conditions of modernity established by the Moderate Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, and included the efforts of people such as Robert Chambers, John Crawfurd, Samuel Smiles, Robert Owen, Thomas Hodgskin, Pierre Proudhon, Gustave Courbet, Herbert Spencer, Edward Tylor, Ephraim Squier, Moses Harman, Francisco Ferrer, and many others whose focus was primarily on addressing societal arrangements through the lens of natural philosophy and especially through disciplines such as paleontology, economics, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, and politics. This was also a time that would be consistent with the emerging and then flourishing Golden Age of Free Thought as well as the Golden Age of Fraternity, which are properly considered to be intermingled with each other as well as with these thinkers and doers.
At the heart of all of this modernity and modernism stuff was a pantheism that had passed down from the ancient Greeks through Thales, Parmenides, Emedocles, and so on, through elements of Aristotle and Plotinus and into the Golden Age of Islam, and which had reconnected with Native European pantheism in the works of Eriugena, inspiring a long line of pantheists through Nicholas of Cusa and Amalric of Bena on down to Lucilio Vanini and Giordano Bruno to Baruch Spinoza and John Toland. This pantheism had fueled the Radical Reformation, the Radical Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and through Spinoza and Toland the Radical Enlightenment, which themelves gave way to the Moderate Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Pantheism was now, though not always enunciated or even consciously affirmed—even at times being rejected by the less witting—behind modernism, inspiring the prosocial views of the emerging liberal or libertarian socialists, such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and more. Pantheism—and particularly dualistic pantheism—, which is to say natural philosophy appropriately understood, is the ultimate affirmation of natural existence in both its mundanity and preternaturalism, as well as its pathology. Pantheism provides a resolution to the conflicts and paradoxes of existence, and from its embrace of Necessity—both mechanical and organic, or physical and teleological— has naturally been drawn the deepest wisdom of all ages. It is no surprise that it would also characterize the Golden Ages of Free Thought and Fraternity, which were also consistent with what might be considered a Second Scientific Revolution, that of the social sciences.
But alas, modernity and modernism, too, would be corrupted. Their antithesis, postmodernism, in its early form, Modernism—a development from out of Romanticism, a Counter-Enlightenment current—, would begin to wrestle the reins of the future from the moderns and modernists, taking them into their own hands. The new Modernists were not truly modernists, because they did not affirm the progressive evolution of society through Reason, but did embrace elements of modernity and scientific reasoning and combine it with their Decadence and Symbolism. It must be understood, however, that the icons of the Scientific Revolution, such as Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton, had already contributed to modernity before the modernists, having been connected themselves to Rosicrucianism, which was a Renaissance-inspired force of the Counter-Enlightenment that promoted humanism and science, but also realpolitik, such as that of Machiavelli, and which ultimately corrupted the Enlightenment into the Moderate Enlightenment form we are familiar with through the infiltration of Freemasonry alongside the Knights Templar, Jesuits, and others. The Modernists had simply continued with this tendency, and can be associated with an effort to religify and establish hierarchies in the fields of science, ultimately functioning to its detriment and turning it into scientism and credentialism. This effort has been traced back also to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is often mistakenly confused for an Enlightenment figure due to some Radical Enlightenment elements to his worldview, including pantheistic sentiments that were also common among the Renaissance, but whose ochlocratic worldview ultimately inspired the Reign of Terror.
While pantheism is the necessary condition for philosophical progress, it does not seem to be a sufficient condition for it unless properly understood and embraced. Indeed, we find quite an evil expression of misopantheism in the Modernism of Phillip Mainlander, whose pandeism suggested that the death of God was the life of the world, and an absolute detestation for Nature in Joris-Karl Huysmans’s equally pessimistic worldview. The Modernists were more than happy to make use of pantheistic and free thinking sentiments in order to jiu-jitsu them to the best of their ability, relying not on Reason to do so, but instead upon deception, the obvious name-stealing of modernism in the public mind being a clear example.
From Modernism to Postmodernism
Whereas modernism was bringing Celtic and Anglo-Saxon natural philosophers to the forefront, postmodernism would increasingly popularize Jews, a group often criticized by the former as parasitic or predatory, and French culture—the Franks having long been the enemies of the Anglo-Saxons and contributors to the Norman culture that dominated them and that they were escaping in coming to America—alongside them. Chief among the new Jewish figureheads was Albert Einstein—the GOD OF SCIENCE himself—, who, in standing on the shoulders of many, including Henri Poincare, Oliver Heaviside, and Olinto De Pretto, as well as the classical mechanists Ernst Mach and Friedrich Hasenohrl, has been made larger-than-life for his relativization of physics. Bakunin had already warned about the onslaught of the “learned academy,” and for the capacity of a monopoly over science to have horrendous results. But the academy had just gotten settled in. Einstein would be accompanied by other heavenly accomplices, such as Martin Heidegger, who said further that the world was completely uncertain from its very foundations. These sorts of insights had been built atop the entropic insights of earlier thinkers such as Sadi Carnot, the divergent evolution of Charles Darwin, and the monophyly of Carl Linnaeus, which reflect the Abrahamic monotheism and endogamy that might ultimately also be derived from monotheistic and ancestral sentiments found in common with Native American groups such as the Utes, Shoshone, Aztecs, Maya, and more.
The entropic view seems to have lost sight of or missed the teleological and eschatological insights of people such as the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Phoenicians which would come—by way of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle— to mature in teleological organicism and eschatological universalism, perhaps especially with the modern scientific work of people such as Luigi Fantappie, Albert-Szent Gyorgyi, and Buckminster Fuller, who demonstrated and built upon the insights related to syntropy, the cosmic tendency that runs counter to entropy and bestows life upon all of us through the generation of what appears to be spontaneous, but which is in fact a retrodeterministic and teleological order that will be too strong for any of us to resist at the end of all time. Our common origin as living things distinct from inert matter is not in the past, but in the future. Ancestor worship, Abrahamic religion, Linnaeus, Carnot, Darwin, Heidegger, and their ilk have gotten this all wrong. The real story is that the Universe is eternal within four dimensions of space and time, but we experience an existence that seems to shift within it, much as Parmenides taught; that shifting within it due to living is accounted for by the teleology of Aristotle and the syntropy of Fantappie; that convergence is the arrow of evolution as was suggested by Ephraim Squier; and that concrete knowledge is possible, as Mario Ferreira dos Santos professed, though its lower orders must often be discovered pragmatically, as William James made clear.
Unlike modernity, which had been characterized by its objectivity and honest search for truth, postmodernity would become associated with skepticism toward knowledge claims, and elite theorists and conspiracy theorists, such as C. Wright Mills and Antony Sutton, among a large number of others, would increasingly point toward corruption within institutions of power, including those of government, military, education, media, and so on. Sociologists of science, historians of the philosophy of science, as well as philosophers of science more generally have increasingly shown that science as a practice must be separated from scientists, who are willing to use false claims and power moves in order to forward political agendas in acts of public manipulation. This happened, for instance, with Carelton Coon, who had continued to develop the ideas of polygenesis in his own way. Further, the focus in academia became increasingly dogmatic, with demands that publications be peer-reviewed by already-credentialed Bobos and not have anything offensive that could run against established passions or sensibilities of the administration, especially those associated with any kind of inequality of character or moral worth. It also promoted a strange, subjectivistic and humanitarian sort of scientism that cannot be considered good science.
Increasingly, our favorite radicals and modernists, men such as Chambers, Crawfurd, Smiles, Owen, Hodgskin, Proudhon, Courbet, Spencer, Tylor, Squier, Harman, Ferrer, and more, were scapegoated as privileged white men and, as such, racists. Of course, as with modernism, privilege had come to mean something different from what it did originally and as used by the radicals, which referred to opportunities granted by the state which gave one an artificial advantage. Instead, it came to mean the exact opposite, the lack of an artificial detriment to the Anglo-Saxons’ superior culture, ideology, and way of life, such as those of the radicals especially, which tended to uphold standards of tolerance, self-determination, and magnanimity, and certainly moreso than any other group. But in reality, it is the benefactors of welfare and other government handouts, and of private property, who are the truly privileged individuals, having artificial advantages established by the might of the state that subsidize their mediocrity. While there may have been times when white privilege did in fact exist under the law, particularly before the Civil War in the eyes of the courts, legal privileges are today granted instead to particular whites such as Jews, as well as to people of color, women, and to LGBTQAPBDSM participants in increasing numbers.
Racial Realities
Blacks and whites in the United States and most Western and Westernized countries tend to occupy territory in a sympatric fashion, sharing the same space but at different times and often in different niches of employment. While there are certainly miscegenistic relationships and mixed friendships, partnerships, associations, or corporate groups as well, for the most part American ethnoracial groups, even within the same socioeconomic status, remain voluntarily separated into their own subcultures, overlapping primarily in involuntary associations and from consequential interactions within them, or from proximity.
Mixed individuals such as Mestizos and Mulattos typically tend to identify most with their lowest strata element, but this is not a hard rule, and even the lower strata will have some reservations about accepting them fully into their subculture. Nonetheless, the existence of Mestizos and Mulattos demonstrates that favorable interactions are still had between or across racial subcultures. Further, even within racial subcultures there may be members of other races, resulting in groups— to use dated terms familiar to me as a member of the Millenial generation— such as “wiggers,” or white people who act in manners stereotypically associated with black subcultures, or “oreos,” blacks who are accepted as racially black but who are said to be “white on the inside” due to their behaving in ways reminiscent of a white yuppie or prep (prominently upper-middle to upper class subcultures), and affiliating with whites of these subcultures. These groups may contribute to the hybridization of race, and are an example of racial-subcultural boundary infringement in the more purely cultural aspect, but are often given a hard time for breaking with norms of their inherited subcultures. Whites who take to black subcultures are often scorned as “colonizers of culture,” demonstrating the friction that such boundary challenges come with.
The average black American is a wage-earner, as with the average white person and Hispanic. While some blacks in America have risen publicly to positions of prominence, however, these have primarily been positions within criminal gangs or— to say the same— government, organizers of political pressure groups, entertainment and media, public intellectuals, professional athletics, preachers, and other high-profile no-production roles. Less frequently, though at times, do blacks publicly emerge as leaders of civil or moral society more strictly-speaking, becoming master craftsmen or realist artists, cooperative entrepreneurs, fraternity masters, common sense scientists, natural philosophers, and so on, contributing to Anglo-Saxon society elements that it values most, industry and innovation with regard for the increase and enhancement of individual liberty. This is not to disparage anyone, but, to address the reality of the situation.
I know of no worthwhile mutualist philosopher who was black, despite having searched for such a person and hoping for the best, and despite mutualists in the wider sense—or associationalists and individualists—being the major drivers of abolitionism. Black mutualists have certainly existed to some degree or another, and still do today, and are most surely respectable and admirable human beings to that degree. But such individuals’ historical focus, in this capacity, has not been on challenging the mores of white society and enmeshing whites into welfare servitude and compulsory affirmation, but on developing their character in a similar sort of fashion, so as to be upright and morally worthy individuals themselves. At least, this was the case with fraternal groups such as the Free African Union Society, Prince Hall Freemasonry, and many of the other black mutual societies.
Among the best philosophers of the blacks today— for an attempt at a consistent worldview based in classical anarchism—, however, Lorenzo Ervin has been an advocate of violence against even middle class whites who do not agree with giving blacks economic support but prefer to keep their earnings instead. Thomas Sowell, another noteworthy thinker, and probably better than Ervin in many respects, especially cultural and economic, has long been an apologist for capitalism and the oligarchic republic. Those blacks who have made it into the public eye are often from some sort of fraternal foundation or affinity or have had private or public support, which is at the heart of their seeming greatness, though almost always anyone of any race who have made it into the public eye have been corrupted into such a position through artificial prestige or dupedom, as is likely to have occurred within or among benevolent societies. In this, they have largely unknowingly served Anglo-Saxon and Jewish leaders from within and the monopolistic control of the Great White Brotherhood, the international fraternity that holds together the international nation-state system.
Having been taken advantage of by slavery which exacerbated the problem, it has historically been the case that blacks have relied on advocacy and support by whites, which has come in one of two forms. The radical solution, before radicalism having been co-opted into progressivism, was for a greater focus to be placed on the areas of character development and economic justice, as early black and mixed-race fraternities, cooperatives, and unions had done, but the progressive solution was to place a greater focus on character equity and racial equality, as political pressure groups growing from out of black benefit societies had done, leading up to the Civil Rights movement. The former held people to high standards of perfectibility which demanded that they improve themselves and their society, while the latter apologized for people’s shortcomings and excused them, allowing for mediocrity to go on without challenge, and for working white people to cough up their money. Blacks who have chosen the radical solution of self- and societal improvement have worked on their character and habits, thereby becoming upstanding and morally worthy individuals. Those who have taken to the progressive solution of mediocrity have joined the ranks of crime, government, and the like.
Among blacks there are certainly virtuous and conscientious individuals, as history well tells. This is not to suggest, however, that these individuals are one-for-one on par with the virtuous and conscientious among whites, but is nonetheless to suggest that it would be an injustice for blacks to be judged by their lowest common denominator. No individual, from any race, deserves to be judged according to that race’s lowest-achieving members, as an excellent individual from any race should be allowed to reach the heights of human achievement. Still, racial realities exist and arise at least in part from the differences in climate and geography that served as wombs to them, and these realities entail that there are to be expected differences in the velocity of the evolutions of the different races. This leaves some questions.
Who is the William Godwin of blacks? The Josiah Warren of blacks? The Pierre Proudhon? The Lysander Spooner? The Benjamin Tucker? Who among the blacks concerns themselves with the fundamental issues of property, credit, and government, and resolves that every individual, of every race and sex, universally, and without regard to particulars, has free title to the use of the Earth, free title to the notes backed by their labor or product, and complete freedom of association? Show me this man or woman in history, if he or she so existed before the World Wars when things weren’t epistemologically fuzzy, and place his or her book in my hand, and my opinion will be reversed immediately. No longer will I consider the best of the black intellectuals primarily concerned with particularisms of race, but with the impartial, even-handed universality of the laws that govern humanity at-large, as I do the very best of the Anglo-Saxons, among them those I have mentioned. Blacks complain that Anglo-Saxons and Jews were owners of slaves, and that is true, but it does not speak to the wider population, but is limited to the aristocrats and merchants, so it is unfair to judge whites by their lowest common denominators. The whites that I am generally and most in support of were the radicals, who were the most staunch abolitionists of them all, and concerned themselves with benevolence toward other races. Who among the blacks was chief amongst their friends, and lent their mental efforts with a similar intensity to the cause of mutualism and not to the cause of being black and in everyone’s face about it?
Whites Not Wholly Better
It’s not like whites are wholly better, though. And in their having been some of the earliest people to evolve from out of Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, and other early humans into Homo sapiens as the Cro-Magnoids in Europe and the proto-Mediterranoids or Eurafricanoids in North Africa and the Levant, Anglo-Saxons and Jews are at the helm of the statecrafting elite. However, their war chiefs are perennially having deals with, and allegiances to, the Orient, being nothing more than economic vassals to Asian suzerains and malevolent domineers of presently-inferior races since the development of horseback riding and the spread of Scythians, Turks, Huns, and Mongols. The ruling class of the United States is primarily composed of these Protestant Anglo-Saxon and Jewish whites, though it is also becoming infused with other ruling parties—landlords, bankers, bosses, politicians, etc.—from the Orient, including Arabs, Persians, Indians, and Chinese, as well as those from other races of Europe, including Italians, Celts, and Slavs, as well as with interests from continental Europe such as Catholicism.
The original American Anglo-Saxon elite comes primarily from out of British Protestant groups and British liberal republicanism, and includes elements of late Freemasonry, such as the Scottish Rite which tends to be more secular and the York Rite which is more religious, as well as Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism, and Congregationalism, also views such as moderate deism. This elite ethnoracial subculture was eventually displaced by the one that exists today, which still includes Anglo-Saxon elements, for instance, but which is spearheaded by the Jewish elite and supported by Catholicism and connected to immigrationism, such as by the Slavic Alpines that Madison Grant acknowledged, Celtic ones, and Romantic Mediterranoids such as the Italians, by Mongoloid Chinese, and now Turks, Arabs, West and South Asians, Africans, and more. French culture has been an increasingly strong influence on the Anglosphere. While the older WASP culture was connected to the Moderate Enlightenment and then modernism, its displacement was connected to the Counter-Enlightenment onslaught of Modernism, which the WASP elites were themselves enamored by but did not spearhead. The Counter-Enlightenment is led largely from places such as Kent, Denmark, France, Italy, and Switzerland.
But among the WASPs and Celts who affiliated with them, and especially among the lower and middle class, were also found the radicals, as well, especially among the Unitarians, Universalists, Quakers, transcendentalists, cooperativists, and eventually the individualists. And the radicals are the ones who were having favorable relations with the blacks. Many of them, especially the monogenists, who tended to be the more religious of the bunch, held egalitarian views regarding the racial differences of mankind, while the polygenists, who were often more secular and believed that the human races have separate origins and can be or could have once been classified as different species, more readily acknowledged that there were material and behavioral differences among the races. What the working class radicals and modernists generally agreed upon, however, was that race was no legitimate basis for limiting individual freedom and social progress. As such, they had among them the strongest slavery abolitionists, and also had the most to say about societal evolution. Radicals such as Lysander Spooner argued that slaves had a natural right to return abuses to their “owners.” John Crawfurd had argued that despite the differences in the races and their polygenic origins, that all of the races must be allotted the same fundamental rights, and that each was in a process of further development. Herbert Spencer and Pierre Proudhon had both told us that interracial competition is a program of mutual improvement, early statements of parallel evolution. Edward Burnett Tylor had shown that human societies developed from savagery, through barbarism, to civilization. Ephraim Squier showed that such a purposive evolution was convergent by Nature, and that archaeology demonstrated that it arises time and again from out of disparate sources.
The New Progress
Part of the divide between the radicals and the moderates of the WASPs involved the ethical and heartfelt disagreement about slavery, and another was more cerebral and moral, involving a criticism of slavery as an economic ruiner of the common people, though radical reactionary arguments were also raised in favor of the aristocratic practice. Some of the reactionary aristocrat types, especially those such as Josiah Nott, believed that racial realities were enough to justify benevolent forms of slavery, servitude, or employment by whites. This would be used in arguments by monogenist progressives coming from out of Modernism as justification for ending the discussion on polygenesis. And with the rise of industrialism, progressivism mended the divide between the rulers and the ruled to some extent, replacing the ruiner of the common people with industrial machinery, as the Luddites had declared, and combining this with a new, paternal, noblesse oblige—noble obligation— to eliminate slavery. Now, the ruling class cotton merchants could use the moral arguments that had been used against them against competitors in the South, planters who were too slow on switching to industrialism. Only the radicals were left to criticize the new system that had arisen.
Unfortunately, with the elimination of slavery came industrial wagedom and the subjugation of employment by others. The new factory system had developed from the system of court factors and earlier factories, which employed mill workers along river banks, but which were now made terrestrially possible by horse and steam engines and their capacity to drive a line and shaft system. These early factories and their court factors worked in connection to trading posts that were also military forts, demonstrating further the military and state origins of the factory system that would come to shift slaves from out of their bondage and proletarians from off of their homesteads or farmsteads and together into the factories where they were employed by Anglo-Saxon and Jewish industrialists. Before this, Poor Whites and black slaves as well as freemen were generally amicable toward one another, and might even delight in distant relations, gossip, and trade together, but still generally kept to themselves, though certainly intermingled more than did well-to-do whites and slaves. Still, many Mulattos were produced in affairs between slave-owners and their slaves rather than between Poor Whites and slaves, and in Louisiana, where French law reined, produced a middle class of people known as Free People of Color.
The new progressivism, which also went by radicalism, though it was not concerned with egalitarian governance in truth—a trend of name-stealing that might by now be familiar—, would be spearheaded by people such as Abraham Lincoln, who, in league with bankster interests from the North, and as supported by Karl Marx, used industrial forces to conquer the South who had lawfully nullified and then seceded from the Union. The new radicals were composed of a mixed bunch of duped actual radicals and nave infiltrators who shifted the efforts of those dupes to greater centralization in the state in the name of freeing the slaves. David G. Croly and George Wakeman, for instance, may have argued for miscegenation as providing hybrid vigor to the human species, but were also statesmen who supported Lincoln and the Democrats. It has been argued that the work supporting miscegenation was used to cause a reaction against Lincoln, but this seems to fall apart under closer inspection of these radical liberals. Radical liberals such as these were co-opted under Lincoln’s progressivism, an early instance of what would become cultural Marxism. While this did free the slaves, their material conditions did not improve greatly immediately as a whole, and Poor Whites, mostly of a Celtic background but also including déclassé Anglo-Saxons, would now be found filling the jail cells that were originally constructed to capture runaway slaves and forced to pick cotton in chain gangs, or increasingly pressured off of their homesteads and farmsteads and into the factories. Like Marxism, Lincolnism is an example of “looks good on paper,” and, as such, fooled many radicals into joining or fighting for the progressive cause—including even mutualists, the best among the radicals, such as William B. Greene, Charles A. Dana, and Francis D. Tandy—, but the progressive cause ultimately ended up centralizing even more power into the hands of the state. Since having attained their freedom, the major political achievements of blacks for their subculture, through political pressure and watchdog groups, have included civil rights, welfare, and affirmative action at the expense of a still-dwindling white middle class.
Against Interracial Enmeshment
Salvador Minuchin established the concept of enmeshment within the field of psychology, referring to a family system wherein boundaries between individuals are eschewed such that the concerns of one are made those of another, resulting thereby in a reduction in individual autonomy. This is a common theme within narcissistic family cults, wherein a patriarch or matriarch enmeshes with their spouse and children to run the whole household according to their solo interests, and often involves efforts of covert narcissism such as manipulation, though may also simply imply a penchant for interdependence. Children of enmeshing parents, whether those parents are narcissistic or not, tend themselves to be enmeshing individuals. This can be expressed as a longing for belonging in a family or, if the family is ultimately rejected for its narcissism, a friend group, resulting at times in the dropping of barriers and a naïve kind of openness, unthinking altruism, echoism, and more, done in attempts to enmesh with others, to sort of become one common person with entangled concerns. This sort of enmeshment, which comes with a reduction in individual autonomy and identity, can be very destructive for the individual’s success in life.
I use enmeshment in a more anthro-sociological sense to refer to a pseudomutualist entanglement of the interests of people groups (races, ethnicities, cultures, subcultures) in a similar sort of fashion as that which occurs between individuals. Examples of enmeshment include legal particularisms— such as those that bestow a privilege upon an “officially oppressed” group, as Keith Preston aptly calls them (please excuse me P.C. police for evoking the name of the Devil)—, affirmative action and welfare programs, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs foistered onto the “public,” anti-hate speech laws, as well as pusillanimous excuse-making for dominating other people through ethnonationalism and statism. Any sort of infringement upon the principle of reciprocity— which has come to be ideally associated with legal universalism and the rule of law rather than of statesmen— that is committed in the name of a particular racial or ethnic group, culture, or etc., and on the grounds of its being that particular people group, is an act of enmeshment of the sort that I use here. Importantly, this sort of anthro-sociological enmeshment is not to be confused for mutual compassion and consideration, or cooperation and collaboration, but more relates to communitarianism, communism, progressivism, and nationalism, ideologies which ask the individual to set their ego or self aside for the sake not of themselves, but for the group or group leader.
Enmeshment’s chief perpetrators, perhaps, are the advocates of Abrahamic religion and Darwinism, who have tried to enmesh the world into their false belief that we all come from either a biblical or methaphorical Adam and Eve, or else a poorly-defined root population. The monogenic cult has made its imperial march across the world, and has Indo-Eurafricanoids, Congoids, Mongoloids, Australoids, and Americanoids believing that they share a common origin in the past, all while that common origin is in the future, and thereby rob individuals of the meaning and purpose in their lives, that is, of their souls. Satanic Decadents and Symbolists, who are now an influence on the Church and on academia, and on culture more widely through postmodernism, delight in the fact of their vampirism, perhaps favorably remembering their own descent from the cannibals, and continuing the practice in their synarchic bankster leagues from within the Great White Brotherhood that they believe, whether literally or metaphorically, unites them as children of Noah under the Seven Rays. They suck the life pulse from the economy with their usury and taxation, as a parasite does the blood of its host, and conspiracy theorists tell us it gets much more devilish even than this, if such a thing is imaginable; after all, the ruling class uses its usury and tax money to fund wars, with which it claims the Earth as their private asset, and devastates millions and more lives across its face with their killing, domination, oppression, and exploitation. What is to keep the worst of them from devouring children?
Nationalism poses itself as a solution to the problem of interracial enmeshment, but its ideologies are often spawned or captured by the same monogenic errors, resulting in intraracial enmeshment, its leading advocates claiming to be the offspring of such and such and so-and-so from this or that Abrahamic or pagan tale. Nations are established when conquered tribal people are successfully enmeshed into the narcissistic family histories of rulers from other tribes, and made to forget their own foundations, to be officiated as relatives by law. While the polytheists may understand this to some extent, and have fueled their nationalism with rebellion against monotheism in the name that it pushed out their native ancestral deities, they are nonetheless often persuaded by deeper monogenic origins, especially as co-opted through Darwinism and neo-Darwinism in Modern and postmodern science. Further, their far-right nationalism is pussilanimous rather than magnanimous, and seeks to set them fully apart rather than to interrelate in more healthful ways that do not involve enmeshment, but which nonetheless involve benevolence and goodwill toward other people of different people groups. This autarkic atomism is not good for anyone.
Continuing a Radical Modernist View of Human Evolution
The standard model of evolution is derived from Darwin’s model of evolution and saltationism, or mutationism, as applied through Mendellian genetics, and so on. Followers of this view, called neo-Darwinism, coming from out of Modernism and embraced by the fin de siècle, argue for monogenist origins for humanity, that human beings come from an original man and woman, much the same as has been the case in The Bible, or else from a root population group that they have much difficulty in defining or distinguishing from the population that produced it. As such, this model continues along the monophyletic lines of Carl Linnaeus in utilizing a divergent, branching tree of evolution that is consistent with a divergent view of evolution. In fact, Johann Blumenbach, a monogenist preceding Darwin, had argued, also like Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon, that the original humans were Caucasians from whom the rest of the human races had degenerated, with Blumenbach suggesting that climatic factors caused their degeneration from Adam and Eve. Blumenbach’s acknowledgment of racial differences would fluster later monogenists, especially among the progressives. But his racial typology is still used by some (now fringe) anthropologists, and was certainly employed by Carleton Coon.
A radical, remodernist model of evolution might rely on some synthesis, as the radicals did not always agree, and made many of the same errors as the moderates, composing more of a milieu than a singular worldview. But we should be able to derive something different from them, and taken as a whole the collection of orienting generalizations should be enough to establish a general theme. Beginning with Robert Chambers, who combined an interest in James Hutton’s radical geology, Pierre Lalace’s nebular hypothesis, George Combe’s phrenology, and a wide interest in paleontology, we find that the radical path was not too far from where we are today, with Chambers even utilizing Linnaeus’s divergent monophyletic system. This trend should be familiar by now, because the reason is that the radicals are the ones who spearheaded evolution, with Charles Darwin, an anointed GOD OF SCIENCE, having followed more than a decade later. Darwin had similarly been anticipated by Herbert Spencer, who clearly implied evolution by natural selection, as well as epigenetic evolution, in his works long before Darwin published on the idea.
But while Chambers expressed a monophyletic view of evolution, and Spencer may have been a monogenist—I am not sure he published on the matter—, the radical camp uniquely contained a large number of polygenists. Polygenism was a unique element among the radicals, or a uniquely radical element among moderates and aristocrats, because it implied extrabiblical authority typically derived from natural philosophy or heretical readings of The Bible. Among the polygenists would be found George Morton, John Crawfurd, Ephraim Squier, Louis Agassiz, Josiah C. Nott, George Gliddon, Anders Retzius, and many others. While some of the polygenists, such as Nott, opposed strongly the idea that hybdridization was a cause of evolution, radical monogenists such as Croly made the case for miscegenation, an idea that is also unique to the radicals and makes an interesting combination. The idea that the races developed from out of convergent sources and then hybridized would be popularized by Franz Weidenreich and Carleton Coon in their polycentric views of evolution, and to a lesser extent is carried on in the multiregional model of Milford Wolpoff or regional continuity model of Alan Thorne.
Combining the unique elements among the radicals or modernists, such as Spencer’s social Darwinism, Squier’s polygenism, Tylor’s social and cultural evolutionism, Croly’s miscegenation, and Crawfurd’s magnanimity, we get a picture that is consistent with human racial evolution as arising convergently from out of polygenic origins, developing in parallel and interbreeding, and evolving at varying velocities through coopetition to higher orders of being, combing through miscegenation along the way. If we add to that the common sense observation that there is sympatric evolution taking place, and with the insight that mutualism is the real driver of evolutionary progress, we get to discern an important message about Nature from out of these radicals. I call this resulting model henogenesis or henophyly or as henogenetic or henophyletic volution, choosing perhaps too inconsistently to drop the e which I associate with entropic processes. Its anticipants include figures such as Squier, Weidenreich, and Coon, but to limited extents, as my theory is built upon the metaphysical or thermodynamic premise of syntropy and the geological premise of an expanding-and-contracting, growing Earth.
Antagonism, Agonism, Mutualism, and Cooperation in Humans
Between species and among asocial species, deadly antagonisms are quite common, resulting in evolutionary arms races between predator and prey, parasite and host, or competitors over resources. However, within a semi- or fully social species, antagonism is reduced to agonism, a more orderly form of competition. Agonists, unlike antagonists, will generally adhere to internal rules of conduct that prevent foul play and abuse, such as by generally announcing oneself rather than ambushing one’s opponent, and restraining oneself from killing them unnecessarily. Agonism is especially prominent between males of the same species, who will engage in agonistic violence with one another over territory and the food and females that come with it, an ecological niche. The opposites of antagonism and agonism are mutualism and cooperation.
Interspecific mutualism is distinct from intraspecific mutualism, which is more properly referred to as cooperation. Mutualism between species implies that there are mutual gains to be had by way of reciprocity, but that these gains are different in their nature and content. Such mutualism is allowed by the fact that there is minimal resource competition or interference and gains derived from association are win-win, such as when the oxpecker keeps the ox free from pests. This is a harder thing to accomplish within a species, due to the like needs of the participating animals, but it does in fact happen with cooperation. Cooperation occurs when intraspecific association can bring about mutual benefits even within a shared macroniche (though competition for microniches may still occur). This happens when something can be gained or maintained by working together to establish or preserve a system, as when Chimpanzees mutually maintain one another through grooming or help one another combat predators. Despite cooperation, there are still areas of competition between them, especially in regard to feeding and mating.
The henogenic nature of human evolution suggests that human interactions between the races will have elements of antagonism, agonism, mutualism, and cooperation, and this explains why we have the full range of behaviors from murder and war to bar fights and capitalism to associations and partnerships. But antagonism and agonism are reduced between the races through mutualism and cooperation. Cooperation, however, may be best approached through a stage of coopetition to bridge from barely-social agonism, which must free itself from the antagonism and pseudomutualism of the ruling class. By this view, interracial and even intraracial mutualism does not by necessity imply immediate cooperation—especially compulsory cooperation—, owing to the polygenic origins of the different races and the interests of the different classes, but it does suggest that there may be differences between the races that might allow for some areas of specialization and exchange that may allow for greater degrees of peaceful sympatry. As such, amicable relations between the races need not raise to the level of collaboration, the way that cooperation entails, but should be found to be acceptable at the level of compromise. This is not to suggest that collaboration through cooperation is impossible or never undesirable—as we are largely the same, dynamic chronospecies now—, but that it may not be in demand enough yet to curb the emerging agonism, which occurs in fringe situations where miscegeny comes up against standard sympatry and parallel evolution, within hybridization zones. While hybridization zones are valuable loci for evolution, most of them occur, as suggested previously, in areas of animosity arising from involuntary association. They are better formed organically, but regulated agonistically either collectively or in common.
The Pseudomutualism of State and Class Society
In India, the Anglo-Normans had taken control of the subcontinent by way of the East India Company, establishing what amounted to a private government. John Crawfurd, however, who had previously participated in the exploit, would put an end to the dominance of the East India Company and would advocate largely toward the end of class rule and entirely toward the end of the caste system there. John Crawfurd did not necessarily believe that the races were equal, and was a statist and capitalist, but nonetheless held that they were entitled to the same fundamental rights that he as a radical liberal held dear for all whites, and to this extent his magnanimity—in this case, especially his benevolence or generosity— represents the stuff of interracial mutualism between Older and Younger Brother, if we might so refer to white civilization in reference to black barbarism and savagery. Interracial mutualism reaches its peak where coalescence and cooperation begin to take place, and John Crawfurd’s belief in the developmental capacity of all races speaks to such an end, even if Crawfurd himself didn’t develop it to its full conclusion.
Statecraft and class society contain elements of antagonism, such as predation and parasitism or unchecked aggression, alongside elements of mutualism and cooperation, but with antagonism taking precedence, producing a pseudomutual relationship similar to that found within a narcissistic family cult, where mutuality is framed as the major feature despite the antagonism taking place and driving decisions in a conflictarian manner, which establishes asymetric competition or contest. Economic classes are typically composed of conquering and conquered races or ethnicities, such as the ruling Normans, the middle class Anglo-Saxons, and the lower class Celts of Britain or the Spaniards or Portuguese rulers, Mestizo middle class, and Amerindian lower class of South America, to give two instances outside of our own country, where today Norman-like dominance has been reapplied by the same culprits as in the Middle Ages, including especially Roman and Norman (Jutish and Rhadhanite) or Catholic and Jewish influences. The conquering races are often a civilizing or developmental impetus that accelerate parallel evolution and shift people groups into sympatric relations together, not entirely unlike the voluntary consequences of voluntary exchange, though certainly at a higher cost and with greater imperfection.
Class society and its civilizing effects represent some degree of dominance and domestication taking place between the races. The relationship between humans and domesticated animals can be described as a sort of quasi-mutualism or pseudomutualism, perhaps even as obligate mutualism, because humans and domesticated animals rely on one another for survival, though under the overarching premise of human dominance, predation, and parasitism (this might be less so of cats and dogs, however, whom especially in rural environments are often let out to roam freely and whom come home according to their own free volition, though today’s livestock also often willfully come to their owners when it is feeding time, or go home at night to roost or bed down).
Similarly to the practice of raising animals for food, statists and capitalists are willing to prey economically and in a cannibalistic or vampiric manner on their fellow humans, extracting from them taxes, rent, interest, and profit, drafting them to fight in wars, compelling them to perform as prostitutes and employees, and so on. And this practice is not limited to other races, or even to other ethnicities, though it has its origins in such limitations, but includes now also the economic cannibalism or vampirism of members of one’s own race or ethnicity, so far as one can get away with it. As such, while the ancient caste system forbade such relations between members of superior races, today’s society takes no issue with, for instance, an Anglo-Saxon landlord taking rent from an Anglo-Saxon tenant. In Anglo-Saxon society before the Norman conquest, the Anglo-Saxons were landlords over the Britons, and it was unthinkable that a free Anglo-Saxon would pay feudal rents to another man. But the moral degeneracy from doing this to people of other races has since allowed this to be done to all. Crawfurd doesn’t pose a solution to this on his own, but when met with the mutualism of the other radicals his view seems to provide some assistance to our present dilemma, wherein free speech is under the attack of legal particularisms spearheaded by minority identarian groups united intersectionally against Anglo-Saxons.
Mutual Benevolence between Races
Importantly, interracial cooperation need not begin as interracial enmeshment, as the progressives have attempted to do and which actually increases antagonistic and agonistic tensions, but can begin simply and in support of mutualism through particular manners of association and forms of institution that tend however slowly toward cooperation. That is, to use an example from the economy, black and white mutualists need not feel compelled to share together in a partnership or flat cooperative association, but may reasonably maintain some degree of voluntary separation while shaking hands together in a syndicate, mutual bank, credit union, or business league that recognizes that a fair degree of agonism is inevitable in a convergent-emergent species such as our own.
One important way in which human parallel and sympatric mutualism may be practiced is in the roles of mutual “breeder and helper.” By becoming amicable with other races, males of the species, who are typically seen as being responsible for “bringing home the bacon” or being the “breadwinner,” and who are typically sexually selected for in favor of their prestige by way of hypergamy, find themselves in a position where they have access to things that are typically reserved for or produced by races other than their own, providing them with exotic or novel properties that females find to be attractive, similar to the tail feathers of a peacock. Some females may even be attracted simply by observable acts of benevolence, generosity, and good character on the part of the male toward others. In this way and more, economic reciprocity between males of different races can play the function of helping select members of the other race to breed, and vice versa, and thereby play an important role in social and sexual selection of that race.
Mutualism of this sort, emerging from more aggressive forms of parallel evolution, and likely originally taking form in early gifting or tribute economies, is likely responsible for the development of our emerging sympatry and the agonism and what cooperation that comes with it anyway, and has served in the long run to bring the races together through trade and industry from out of the antagonism of different species, in healthful, non-enmeshing ways. Interracial cooperation, which is actually quite rare outside of the involuntary relations as mentioned, is the next step in the process, but this process includes a necessary agonism first, which we have experienced already in class society’s development from antagonism, wherein dominance has been asserted by one race after and over another, as a reflection of ecological succession (pioneering species that establish new systems are often very violent). This is comparable in some respects to the relationship between humans and non-human animals of different species.
Primitive parallel evolution, which was parapatric, has given way to sympatric and coalescent chronospecification, in which the human races share territory but while having separate domains or niches within it, as was reflected in the caste system. Further, there have been areas where mutualism has allotted advantages to those who are willing to associate between the dominant races, especially those of Eurasia, and this has contributed toward the development of international elites and stable ruling and administrative classes such as royalty, nobility, clergy, robber barons, and experts. But there are areas of mutualism yet to be established and areas of cooperation that have been unexplored, which are most accessible between the déclassé white subcultures, Mestizos, and blacks. These groups, through interracial mutualism and cooperation, have the potential to break down antagonisms and agonisms. Especially important to this is the encouragement of healthy economic relations, healthy lifestyles, and prolific sexual opportunities made possible through interracial support. If mutualists from the different races can help one another to successfully breed and raise to levels of prestige through recognized magnanimity, they can displace the ruling class and bring about the first miscegenistic society, free from racial and class domination. Agonism is to be expected in this project, and should be less of a concern than antagonism, even being sponsored in civil forms, including for economic and sexual competition.
Two avenues for interracial mutualism and cooperation that I have developed, which recognize racial realities but nonetheless have high hopes for interracial amicability, include henosyndicalism and henofidelity. Henosyndicalism places class at the front, while recognizing that the races may desire to voluntarily separate for some time, providing a structure of henocentric law by which voluntary degrees of cooperation may be fostered from out of an overarching sympatric mutualism. Henofidelity provides a model wherein micegeny might be explored voluntarily, by providing a structure wherein different sexual encounters may take place safely, including miscegenistic ones that may give way to interbreeding. Certain modern day interracial fetishes that have developed around online pornography could readily find practice in such circles. Within the context of a henosyndicalist henofidelity, various possibilities exist regarding the way to deal with the regular sympatry that may, through agonistic behaviors like interracial cuckolding, complicate family life. These possibilities including consensually-organized support for mixed-race children whose families or communities are having trouble being cooperative. In this way, benevolent societies may be called for, to provide voluntary support to mixed race children whose parents cannot get along, and for the purpose of moving all races forward through hybrid vigor and the conscious coalescence of our chronospecies. Such practices could be understood in terms of interracial harm-reduction and intraracial investment, and could provide opportunities for mixed-race children to succeed in spite of hardships that may otherwise arise. Charity may also be organized for struggling black families, should mutualism not provide enough opportunities for their own self-development.
Perhaps the largest hurdle to such a project is progressivism, which has jiu-jitsued radicalism, and which, through behavioralism and cultural Marxism, has successfully manipulated the lower class into confusing their own leading elements with those of oppression, confusing the non-detriment of middle class whites for privilege. The idea that there are differences in the velocity of evolution arising from disparate origins comes against established sensibilities and passions, and in itself is not beautiful, but suggests that some have more work to do than others. It is nonetheless a natural observation that must be considered with regard to realism, and one that, in contrast to monogenic degeneration and divergent evolution, has much to say about our future identity and transcendent unity.
Unlike the standard model of evolution developed by the Modernists, the radical remodernist synthesis here described suggests that our common identity is not one we are moving away from, placed in the past, but one that unites us together in the future and that thereby, through the syntropic tendencies of teleology and retrocausality, gives us moral purpose and conscientiousness. Now, that is beautiful. It provides meaning and hope, whereas degeneration and divergence are the stuff of absurdity and despair.
While my model does come with the discomfort of recognizing some difference in the present worth of the races, in recognition of objective realities, it is open to this imbalance coming to an end and is hopeful that it will and on a mission to make it happen, and this is not something that the standard model enthusiasts can claim for themselves as they promote the idea that we all descend from a primordial Adam and Eve and have since become increasingly distant in our relation to one another. This is not to suggest that the progressive solution of interracial enmeshment is the solution, as freedom of composition is essential in ensuring that there is a stable equilibrium between cultural homogeneity and genetic infusion. If a society experiences genetic infusion too slowly, it will degenerate, but if it experiences cultural infusion too quickly, it will also degenerate. Also, conflict is a sure aspect of our temporal coexistence. But the arrow of time is still clear; unity is an ultimate inevitability.
Closing
When we are children we wonder to ourselves what might happen if the family dog or cat might learn to talk. This may be our first instance of imagining a convergent form of evolution. We naturally imagine that, if there is intelligence to develop in animals, that this intelligence will in some way be similar to our own. We can’t much imagine another way for intelligence to be, but to express internal emotions and make observations about external reality. And, in fact, intelligence has been shown to have developed in the human genus more than once. Homo naledi, for instance, demonstrates certain convergent evolution within the genus Homo at a time when other members of Homo had already evolved, establishing Homo thereby as a polyphyletic genus. And there is nothing strange about this! This sort of convergent evolution takes place all of the time in the animal kingdom. What might seem a little more strange is that these convergent species may have been able to interbreed. In the case of other known human species, for instance, we know that this has certainly occurred. It is well-established that Homo sapiens cromagnus, or Cro-Magnon Man, interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, or Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova respectively. The two major elements of my model of henophyletic evolution or henogenesis—polygenesis and hybridization—, then, are empirically demonstrated to function on their own; it is only a matter of time before they are admitted together in the manner I have done here.
Back to Article Index