Mercurial Hosting > arkian

<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
	<head>
		<script src="/site.js"></script>
		<script> head() </script>
		<title>Arkian - About</title>
		<script>
'use strict';

let content = {
	intro: {
		title: 'Introduction',
		content: `\
<p>The Arkian view is that modern culture has become intolerable, and that becoming Arkian is the best way to save one's family from modern culture.  I will explain the problems with modern culture, and then I will consider possible solutions, and then I will discuss the Arkian solution in detail.  The name "Arkian" comes from Noah's Ark with the idea being that the Arkian plan is designed to be a refuge to preserve good families in the face of global dysgenic modern culture that is making almost all of humanity go bad.</p>

<p>This web page has two target audiences.  First are people who already recognize what a horror modern culture is, and want a way to deal with this.  Second are relatives of Arkians who may need some convincing of the value of the Arkian idea.  Everyone else should stop reading and leave.  In particular, anyone who isn't related to an Arkian and thinks that modern culture is fine should just go away.</p>
`		,
	},
	problem: {
		title: 'The Problem',
		subs: {
			modern: {
				title: 'Modern Culture',
				content: `\
<blockquote>
<p>Woe to those who call bad good
and good bad,
who substitute darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who substitute bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.</p>
</blockquote>
<cite>Isaiah 5:20</cite>

<blockquote>
<p>A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit.  Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.</p>
</blockquote>
<cite>Matthew 7:18-19</cite>

<p>Modern culture is the worst culture in history.  All of its members are scum, so I call them "modern scum".</p>

<p>Modern scum hate simplicity and love complexity.  They hate intelligence.  They hate beauty and love ugliness.  They hate tradition and love fashion.  They have no loyalty.  They reject family values and support promiscuity.  They love cheap crap and don't value quality.  They have more faith in technology than in nature/God.  They are incapable of critical thinking.  They are obnoxious and reject civility.  They are loud and inconsiderate.  And they are closed-minded and intolerant.</p>

<p>Modern culture is psychopathic.  Compare the behavior of modern culture to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist#Items">Hare Psychopathy Checklist</a>.  Everything designed by modern culture is horrible.  Modern scum hate all good things and only like bad things.  And modern culture is dysgenic.</p>

<p>Modern culture cannot produce good people.  Like the bad tree that can't produce good fruit in Jesus's example, modern culture should be cut down and thrown into the fire.</p>

<p>Modern culture is post-Christian Western culture that has gone global through the internet and is now dominant globally.  The internet is the modern verson of the Tower of Babel.</p>

<p>Why is modern culture the worst culture in history?  Cultures have a natural life-cycle beginning with a rise and ending with a fall caused by decay.  The culture ends when the decay causes the culture to be too dysfunctional to survive.  Cultural decay is similar across historical cultures and is well <a href="/mikraite/Modern_Culture.html">described in the Old Testament</a>.  What is different this time is that technology sustains modern culture beyond the normal point of collapse.  Without modern technology, modern culture would collapse overnight.  So modern culture is more decayed than any culture in history.  Never has the world seen such a level of evil.  Besides modern culture, we now also have a number of welfare cultures that are sustained by welfare rather than by technology.  These culture are as bad as modern culture is.  An example is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mountain-People-Colin-M-Turnbull/dp/0671640984/">The Mountain People</a> who live in an unnatural environment for them, in contrast to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Forest-People-Colin-Turnbull/dp/0671640992/">The Forest People</a> who live in a natural environment and feed themselves.</p>

<p>If you are not a psychopath, then you will fail at everything in modern culture.  Fail at business, fail with women, fail at anything that involves people.  Modern scum hate non-psychopaths.  Since modern scum hate all good things, anything good you make will be hated by modern scum.  To be successful at anything, you must leave modern culture.</p>
`				,
			},
			culture: {
				title: 'Cultural Decay',
				content: `\
<p>Here I will describe cultural decay but not its root cause.  One may say that children playing video games is a cause of decay, or a product of decay, or both.  So one can't call this a root cause.  It's confusing because cultural decay is like old age or a syndrome with many related factors.  So here I will just be descriptive.</p>

<p>In <a href="fate.pdf">The Fate of Empires</a> Sir John Glubb gives an excellent summary of the life cycle of empires.  And he points out that the lifespan of empires is typically 200 to 300 years.  But anyone who has a serious interest in understanding how cultures rise and fall must read original source material from history.  From this, it soon becomes clear that one usually can identify from the style of writing what phase of the civilization that writing came from.  Writings from decaying cultures are generally stupid or reject reality.  Writings from rising cultures are direct and try to address real-world problems.</p>

<p>Since the topic here is specifically cultural decay, I will mention some relevant descriptive writing from other cultures.  The Old Testament does a great job in describing the decay of Israel/Judah from the beginning under King Solomon to the final fall of Judah to Babylon.  Decaying Athens is well described in the comedies of Aristophanes. The beginning of Roman decay is described by Juvenal.  Late Rome is described by Ammianus Marcellinus.</p>

<p>One common feature of all decaying cultures is feminism and family instability.  This is related to promiscuity and I will discuss the dysgenic effect of promiscuity later.  For now I will just describe what happens.  Once punishment for adultery (sex between a married woman and man other than her husband) becomes reduced, it becomes in women's genetic interest to become promiscuous.  I discuss why below in <a href="#dysgenics">Genetic Decay - Dysgenics</a> and also in my post <a href="/mikraite/In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a>.  But the result is feminism which is essentially a slut power movement.  This feminist degeneracy is described in many decaying cultures.  The Old Testament describes it in decaying Israel, Aristophanes in decaying Athens, Juvenal and Apuleius in decaying Rome, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140455280/">Procopius</a> in Byzantium.</p>

<p>Beside the dysgenic effect, feminism causes family instability which harms the raising of children.  So this directly harms the culture.  Also men without stable wives are less committed to their society and so less likely to contribute to society.  So feminism is an example of both a cause of decay and a product of decay.  It is a product of deteriorating religion which results in lessening punishment for adultery which results in feminism.  And it is a cause as I described.</p>

<p>Decaying culture can be viewed through the lens of whatever field interests you whether art or architecture or literature or whatever.  In all fields, one can see good work produced as a culture rises, and bad work produced as a culture falls.  I would like to discuss historical cosmology and modern programming as examples.</p>

<p>In the 200s BC <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos">Aristarchus of Samos</a> invented <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism">heliocentric cosmology</a> which was simple and accurate.  But this was rejected by the people of his time.  Why?</p>

<p>The story of Greek science begins with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras">Pythagoras</a> who lived in the 500s BC.  He was the first person to recognize the power of math to describe the world, and he applied math to many things.  This inspired Greek astronomers to try to describe cosmology in simple mathematical terms.  This was during the time that Greeks were a rising culture.  They were highly intelligent people who respected reality.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato">Plato</a> lived in the 300s BC by which time Greece was in decline.  Plato was an ideologue who was in love with his own ideas and had no interest in reality.  Plato insisted on a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model">geocentric model</a> of cosmology based purely on circles.  Why?  Just because this was the idea that appealed to him.  Reality was irrelevant.  Aristotle backed him up, and so this became orthodoxy.  By the time Aristarchus came along with his heliocentric cosmology, he was violating orthodox ideas so the people of his time just ignored him.  Then in the 100s BC Ptolemy created <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_system">a horrible overcomplicated geocentric model</a> based on the circles that Plato required.  This became the standard for the next 1700 years.</p>

<p>Cosmology only changed again when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus">Copernicus</a> revived the ideas of Aristarchus.  Why did it take so long?  Because this is when the next culture that was as good as the Ancient Greeks developed, namely the culture of Reformation Europe.  It is no accident that Copernicus lived around the time of Martin Luther.</p>

<p>Today's West is like the decaying Greeks.  The programmers in Silicon Valley are like Ptolemy, able to construct and maintain horrible overcomplicated monstrosities, but totally unable to innovate at a fundamental level.  All good programming ideas are rejected because they don't fit into current programming ideologies.  Any programmer like Aristarchus who comes up with a good programming idea will be rejected and ridiculed for violating orthodoxy.  Modern programmers are in love with their own ideas and love complexity.  They hate simplicity and anything that violates their ideologies.</p>

<p>In Matthew 7:6 Jesus said "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."  Jesus lived in decaying Rome and this is excellent advice for anyone living in a decaying culture.  Members of decaying culture hate everything that is good.  And of course modern culture is a decaying culture.  So if you create anything good, you will be hated for it.  In my case as a programmer, my software is pearls and modern programmers are swine, so I am only attacked when I present my software.  And it isn't just my software, all good software is hated by modern programmers.  I wrote more about this on my other website <a href="https://www.reactionary.software/">Reactionary Software</a>.</p>

<p>In this chapter I just tried to describe decaying cultures including modern culture, and what practical impact decaying culture has on life.  Next I will describe some of the possible causes of cultural decay.</p>
`				,
			},
			religion: {
				title: 'Religious Decay',
				content: `\
<p>The correlation between the decline of cultures and the decline or corruption of the culture's founding religion is obvious to anyone who knows history.  But the religion declines first, and there is a long lag between the decline of religion and the outward decline of society.  As a result, cultures peak in outward output after their religion has failed, giving the mistaken impression that secular societies are most productive.</p>

<p>The sequence is roughly this:  Religion declines which causes morality to decline including a decline in effective prevention of adultery and this causes feminism and cultural decline which in turn is dysgenic and causes genetic decay.  This long sequence explains the lag.  This happened in Ancient Israel, Ancient Athens, Rome, Early Islam, and is now happening in the West.</p>

<p>Why does religion decline in successful societies?  One can only speculate.  When society is poor then people feel a need for religion and intelligent people tend to go into religion as the only escape from the chaos of their world.  Once a society becomes successful, regular people don't feel as much need for religion.  But even more important is that intelligent people have many other options in a successful society besides religion, so religion attracts far fewer intelligent people.  Some of these intelligent people become degenerates and attack religion.  Since religion doesn't have enough intelligent people to defend itself, it either conforms to the degeneracy of its time or it simply closes its collective mind and becomes fundamentalist and rejects all reason.  This happened most clearly in Islam where the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila">Muʿtazila</a> became degenerate in response to challenges from philosophy, and then there was a fundamentalist backlash led by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali">Hanbali</a>.  Muslims have been fundamentalists ever since which is why they never produced anything comparable to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age">Islamic Golden Age</a> again.  Christianity is now going through a similar process.  The end result is a loss of religious understanding as I described in my post <a href="/mikraite/Understanding.html">Understanding</a>.</p>

<p>As far as I know, the only Christians who retain a good understanding of their religion is the Conservative Mennonites.  One can see the beginning of the process of religious decay in the <a href="http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4641">Mexican Mennonites</a>.  Most of modern Christianity is too far gone to even be interesting.  Modern Islam is closed-minded but still retains the potential for a reformation that could make it a good religion again.</p>

<p>One last point is the relationship between religion and science.  Science only conflicts with fundamentalist religion, and in fact science depends on good religion, particularly good monotheism.  I discussed this in my post <a href="/mikraite/Science_Requires_Monotheism.html">Science Requires Monotheism</a>.</p>
`				,
			},
			dysgenics: {
				title: 'Genetic Decay - Dysgenics',
				content: `\
<p>The best introduction to the idea of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics">dysgenics</a> is the <a href="https://youtu.be/gJDcoqrh1ac">introduction</a> of the movie <a href="https://archive.org/details/Idiocracy_201507">Idiocracy</a>.  <a href="https://youtu.be/gJDcoqrh1ac">Edward Dutton</a> has studied this issue and <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/PEoRIWdzXYzo/">commented on Idiocracy</a>.  I agree with his criticisms and I think <a href="https://youtu.be/ZRuSS0iiFyo">modern Liberia</a> is a better model for the future of the West.  His book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07M8NG2CN/">At Our Wits' End: Why We're Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future</a> gives hard evidence for declining intelligence in the West.  His reasoning really doesn't add much beyond what is in the introduction to Idiocracy.  But he makes the point that this pattern has likely repeated throughout history, and that when selection pressure is eugenic then cultures rise, and that success tends to cause dysgenic pressure and so as intelligence declines the culture fails.</p>

<p>The widely held opinion on the cause of dysgenics is what is described in the introduction to Idiocracy.  But I believe that there is another even more dysgenic force in decaying cultures which I will describe in some detail because it is a new idea.  My idea is that female <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection">sexual selection</a> in a promiscuous culture is dysgenic and leads to selection that favors stupidity and immorality.

<p>Consider how male peacocks got their bright feathers.  These bright feathers have no benefit for survival.  In fact they are harmful for survival, being heavy and easy for predators to see.  So let's start by imagining peacocks before they had big bright feathers.  Since females can only have a limited number of children, females tend to be selective about which males they mate with.  They should prefer healthy "good-looking" males since their children will inherit the male's genes.  Those males with dull feathers may well have been poorly nourished and unhealthy.  Bright feathers were probably a good indication of a healthy male.  So females evolved to prefer males with bright feathers.  But now it becomes in the male's interest to have bright feathers because if he doesn't, females will reject him and he won't be able to reproduce.  So males evolved to have bigger and brighter feathers, not for survival, but for the sexual advantage that allowed males to have more children.  At some point these bigger brighter feathers were no longer an indication of good health.  So why didn't the females stop preferring such males?  This is explained by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis">sexy son hypothesis</a>.  If the female mates with a male who is popular with other females, then her sons will likely inherit the male's traits that made the father popular and so her sons will also be popular and will have many children with many females.  This will spread not only the father's genes but also the mother's genes.  So those females who are attracted to popular males have an advantage.  At this point in the story, male peacocks with big bright feathers are popular with females, so it is to each female's advantage to mate with males with big bright feathers.  This is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway">Fisherian runaway selection</a>, a story of natural selection gone wild, and not doing what is in the best interest of the species.</p>

<p>It is in the genetic interest of females to mate with the best type of male for the current environment.  Because this is so important, one can reasonably assume that a significant part of a woman's brain is dedicated to this issue.  This means that women can intuitively determine which men are genetically "good" much better than men can using analytical reasoning.  In other words, men have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability.  When a woman says that a man is "hot", she is unquestionably correct that he is a good genetic choice in her current environment.  And when a woman says that a man is a (genetic) loser, she is also unquestionably correct in her current environment.</p>

<p>So what type of man is optimal in a promiscuous culture?  The answer is stupid immoral men.  Immoral because that means that they will have sex with any women without restraint - other men's wives, underage girls, etc.  Stupid because this means that they won't use birth control in the process.  Such men can have a huge number of children, so these are the type of men that women are attracted to in a promiscuous culture.  The political expression of this desire of women to be sluts chasing bad men is called "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism">feminism</a>".</p>

<p>This type of sexual selection in promiscuous cultures is far more dysgenic than the usual explanation of the lower classes reproducing faster than the upper classes.  This force means that decent men will find it almost impossible to reproduce with women from their culture, but that the most stupid and evil men will have a huge number of children.</p>

<p>Now the question arises why this force didn't destroy humanity long ago.  The answer is that human culture has generally punished promiscuity, and that those that didn't either remained as primitive weak tribes or quickly collapsed as a culture.  In the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Culture-Joseph-Daniel-Unwin-ebook/dp/B083113DMD">Sex and Culture</a> anthropologist Unwin analyzes the correlation between female premarital chastity and the level of development in all known isolated tribes of his time.  He finds that female premarital chastity perfectly correlates to the level of development, absolutely without exception.  Unwin then turns to history and studies rising and falling cultures.  Again he finds that all rising cultures require strict female premarital chastity (virgin wives) and that declining cultures typically don't enforce female premarital chastity.  So it should be no surprise that all religious texts oppose promiscuity, particularly <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Iliad-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140447946/">The Iliad</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140449116/">The Odyssey</a>, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433603640/">Bible</a>, and the <a href="https://dar-us-salam.com/quran/noble-qurans/q03g-noble-quran-english-only-medium-green.html">Quran</a>.  Religion has been the primary force in enforcing female chastity and thereby preventing dysgenic decay.  But successful cultures tend to become less religious and this causes an increase in promiscuity which results in dysgenic decay.  Any solution to the problem of human decay must address this issue.</p>

<p>This chapter is based on my earlier posts <a href="/mikraite/Human_Evolution.html">Human Evolution</a> and <a href="/mikraite/In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> which go into more depth on this topic, and this is well summarized in the post <a href="http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20929">The reproductive superiority of stupid assholes</a>.</p>
`				,
			},
		},
	},
	solutions: {
		title: 'Other Solutions',
		content: `\
<p>Here I will consider other possible solutions besides the Arkian solution.</p>
`		,
		subs: {
			religious: {
				title: 'Religious Communities',
				content: `\
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KUCY7XI/">The Benedict Option</a> is a recent proposal to form Christian communities.  This proposal has two flaws.  First, it has no standards, as I commented in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/RTR9K4PGGEICZ/">my review</a> of this book.  This means that it will not be able to resist the surrounding culture in the long run.</p>

<p>Traditional <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism">Anabaptist</a> groups like the Conservative Mennonites have clear standards for membership.  This is one of the most promising possible solutions to the problem of human decay.  Whether it will work in the long run, I really can't judge.  But obviously it can only work for people who accept their beliefs.</p>

<p>Orthodox Jewish groups have much in common with Anabaptist groups.  They have standards and they form coherent genetic groups as subsets of Jews.  But ultimately they are Jews which takes precedence over their religious community, so everything discussed in the next section on the Jews applies to them.</p>
`				,
			},
			jews: {
				title: 'Jews',
				content: `\
<p>Jews are an ethnicity, not a religion or race.  A convert to Judaism like Ivanka Trump is Jewish.  This conversion is like immigration into the Jewish people.  The immigration process is through the religion, but a Jew doesn't have to follow the religion.  Plenty of Jews are atheist and don't follow Judaism at all, but they are still considered completely Jewish.  So Jews are purely an ethnicity.</p>

<p>The historical process that produced the Jews is described in the Old Testament.  First there were the Hebrews who were a clan/tribe.  They were defined by family relations.  The Israelites began when they left Egypt as a "mixed multitude" of Hebrews and others.  They were defined by religion.  And then finally the Jews were defined as an ethnicity by Ezra.</p>

<p>Many would dispute what I just said, so I will provide evidence that Ezra fundamentally changed the nature of the group.  Ezra introduced meaningful genetic separation by making it more difficult to intermarry with outsiders.  Some would argue that Deuteronomy 7:3 already did this with "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,".  But Deuteronomy 7:4 continues and explains "because they will turn your sons away from Me to worship other gods.".  So the point here isn't ethnicity, but rather religion.  This is a prohibition against marrying people from bad religions, not other ethnicities.  And then there are Moses's wives.  His first wife was Zipporah, a Midianite (not Israelite).  And his second wife was a Cushite (Ethiopian).  This is discussed at length in Numbers 12.  And finally we have the conversion story of Ruth who joined the Israelites fairly easily after accepting their religion.  Ezra overturned all this by sending away all the foreign wives who hadn't gone through a formal conversion/immigration process.</p>

<p>I used to be against Ezra, and I believed that a religious community is best.  But the Old Testament itself describes how badly the Israelites failed as a religious community.  It is very difficult to keep a whole nation unified based on religion since religious differences and degeneration will inevitably occur.  It is better to unify people based on ethnicity and then hope that a good religion has a positive impact on the people.</p>

<p>On the plus side, Ezra created a group (Jews) that has managed to survive a very long time under different conditions.  On the minus side, this group has had and caused many problems.  I believe that what Ezra did wrong was to fail to define a sensible immigration policy, and so this was left to religion.  And as the religion decayed, the quality of "immigrants" also decayed.  The most productive group of Jews where the Ashkenazi Jews in Europe.  But their genetic improvements in areas like intelligence were largely the result of luck, of the selection pressures the European society imposed on these Jews.  This lucky circumstance is now over, and so Jews are in rapid genetic decline.  The decline in Jewish intellect in recent years is obvious and is even <a href="https://www.aish.com/jw/s/Endangered-Jewish-Genius.html">discussed on a Jewish website</a>.  I will continue with the history of the Jews since Ezra until I reach the present.</p>

<p>After Ezra, Alexander the Great conquered Israel.  This brought in the thinking of Plato.  The Jews rejected the idea of absolute truth but embraced the idea of debate based on deductive reason.  The ultimate result of this is <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm">the Talmud</a> which has the most twisted reasoning I have ever seen.  Talmudic thinking is compared to the Old Testament <a href="https://youtu.be/tddCNY6U77Y">here</a> and is criticized from a humanitarian perspective <a href="https://youtu.be/YSy6ENVAJlY">here</a>.  So now the original Old Testament religion was lost and replaced by insane rationalizing of whatever the rabbis wanted to rationalize.  When Israel was under Roman control there were a number of Jewish sects.  The Talmudic sect won out simply because it was the most ethnocentric.  As the winners, they could determine the conditions for becoming a Jew which basically was following Talmudic nonsense for a few years.</p>

<p>After Rome fell, the Jews in Europe aligned with the aristocracy against the people.  This is well documented in the book <a href="https://ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html">Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years</a>.  But this didn't involve most Jews.  People against the Jews point to Jewish bankers and Jewish rabbis who were generally evil.  But the average Jew was typically involved in some basic trade and wasn't necessarily evil.  Because monogamy was enforced by Ashkenazi rabbis and conditions were harsh, there was strong natural selection which increased Ashkenazi intelligence.  An intelligent Jew of this time probably would have realized that the Talmud and the rabbis are insane, but he would have put up with them because this is still better than becoming a serf.  So intelligent Jews remained Jews.</p>

<p>Jews lived in their own districts until Napoleon freed them to live wherever they liked.  But this change was gradual.  Europe had now left the dark ages and entered the Enlightenment.  At this point European culture was much more attractive to an intelligent Jew than Talmudic insanity was.  So Jews began to assimilate into European culture, but they generally did not intermarry with Europeans, so remained a separate gene pool.</p>

<p>After WW2, most Jews left Europe.  The obvious choice for any intelligent Jew was to move to America.  But in America, intermarriage was accepted.  So basically what happened is that all the decent intelligent Jews rejected the Talmudic nonsense and assimilated into America.  My family background is Hungarian Jews, specifically scientists known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists)">the Martians</a>.  These people were assimilated into Hungarian culture, and rejected Judaism.  Once they moved to America, they also genetically assimilated because their children (like me) did not marry Jews.</p>

<p>By now all decent intelligent Jews have stopped being Jews.  The Jews that remain Jews are either stupid or they like the evil Talmudic nonsense.  This is why today's Jews are generally evil.  This is why Jewish intellect declined so rapidly.  And this is why Israel implemented a covid vaccine holocaust on their own population, because modern Jews are too stupid to know any better and too evil to allow dissent.</p>

<p>I have described the Jews at such length because, in spite of their flaws, they are the closest to a general working solution to the problem of mass human decay.  The flaws in the Jewish system may condemn them to be evil and stupid in the near future, but they are still likely to survive as a group.  Since they are an ethnicity, they do not have the religious inflexibility of the Mennonites, so they can evolve as needed to survive, and anyone who is committed can join regardless of their beliefs.  Their rules of genetic separation ensure that they will remain a coherent genetic group distinct from the doomed masses.</p>
`				,
			},
			communities: {
				title: 'Intentional Communities',
				content: `\
<p>After the South lost the American civil war, a number of Southerners (Confederates) set up communities in Latin America, particularly Brazil.  What happened to them?  According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederados#Descendants_of_the_immigrants">Wikipedia</a>:</p>

<blockquote>The first generation of Confederados remained an insular community. As is typical, by the third generation, most of the families had intermarried with native Brazilians or immigrants of other origins. Descendants of the Confederados increasingly spoke the Portuguese language and identified themselves as Brazilians. As the area around Santa Bárbara d'Oeste and Americana turned to the production of sugar cane and society became more mobile, the Confederados moved to cities for urban jobs. Today, only a few descendant families still live on land owned by their ancestors. The descendants of the Confederados are mostly scattered throughout Brazil.</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://youtu.be/D93o3kItF-E">Here</a> is this community today.</p>

<p>This story is an example of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community">intentional communities</a>.  Intentional communities generally don't last long.  They have no natural immunity to the surrounding culture, so they get absorbed by it.  It makes no difference what the founding ideology is because there is nothing to ensure that future generations will keep that ideology.</p>
`				,
			},
			race: {
				title: 'Racial Separation',
				content: `\
<p>Some may blame the outcome of the story of the Southerners in <a href="#communities">Intentional Communities</a> on their genetically mixing with the local population, arguing that mixing with inferior races brings down the genetic quality of the population.  They may argue that if they had practiced racial separation, they would have been spared this fate.  Here I will argue that this is not the case.  Racial separation may slow down genetic decline but does not prevent it.</p>

<p>Now I will enumerate the problems with racial separation.  The first problem is that the gene pool of a race is not static even if it is isolated.  The genetic composition of any group will change based on selection pressure.  In modern societies, the main pressure is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection">sexual selection</a> and this is largely determined by culture.  So if a community is genetically isolated but not culturally isolated, then the surrounding culture will seep in and this will result in the same evolutionary pressures being applied to the group.  And this will slowly change the genetics of the group to resemble the people around them.  Note that modern culture is highly dysgenic, so any isolated gene pool that has modern culture will genetically decline rapidly.</p>

<p>The next problem is the failure to attract good genes from outside the group.  Successful ethnicities typically allow limited immigration which selects for high quality people who improve the gene pool.  The racist may argue that members of lower races can never improve the gene pool.  They often use the difference between animals as an analogy.  But this analogy fails because for any important human characteristic, the average member of the best race is inferior to the best member of the worst race.  This is not true for differences between animals.  The point is that the differences between races is smaller than the differences within a race.  Therefore attracting the best members of any race will improve the gene pool.</p>

<p>A related point is that a race must maintain enough genetic diversity to be able to adapt as conditions change.  Limited immigration guarantees this genetic diversity, while genetic isolation threatens it.</p>

<p>The fundamental point here is that genetic selection is the key to success, not genetic isolation.  I don't know of any historical examples where racial separation worked in producing a highly successful population, so besides the logical arguments I presented here, there is no empirical evidence to support racial separation.  All of the remaining suggested solutions will have some form of genetic selection.</p>

<p>Finally, I would like to comment on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right">alt-right</a>.  This group is the major modern proponent of racial separation, and they are complete losers.  I will leave it to white ethno-nationalist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes">Varg</a> to comment on the alt-right <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/3oGSkoDevWc/">here</a> and <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/yBmMc6h_znM/">here</a>.  Note that Varg is primarily focused on ethnicity, not race, because he values religion and culture, not just genetics.</p>
`				,
			},
		},
	},
	arkian: {
		title: 'The Arkian Solution',
		content: `\
<p>The Arkian solution to escaping from human decay is to try to protect one's descendants by trying to make them Arkian.  The <a href="/requirements.html">membership requirements</a> will encourage them to differ from the degenerate mainstream.  In particular, we want them to understand traditional religious morals and to be intelligent and persistent with critical thinking.  I will explain the reasoning for the requirements.</p>
`		,
		subs: {
			ot: {
				title: 'The Arkian Religion',
				content: `\
<blockquote>
<p>Hate evil and love good, and establish judgement in the gate.</p>
</blockquote>
<cite>Amos 5:15</cite>

<p>The Arkian goal is to save individual families, and this is best done through a family religion.  The Arkian religion is the religion of the Old Testament.  The Old Testament religon began as the family religion of Abraham.  This is the only Western religion that has been decribed as serving as a family religion.</p>

<p>The Old Testament is unique among scriptures in focusing on the historical rise and fall of cultures.  This is very relevant to the Arkian goal of understanding the evil of modern culture and avoiding it.</p>

<p>In the East, people belong to multiple religion.  In the West, this isn't the case because each religion claims to have the exclusive truth.  But since the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible, there is no reason why a Christian couldn't also say that his religion includes the Arkian religion of the Old Testament.  The core of the Arkian religion is to take the Old Testament seriously regardless of what other religious beliefs one has.</p>

<p>Some (like me) may choose for the Arkian religion to be their only religion.  In this case, I recommend reading <a href="/mikraite/Truth_and_Alternatives.html">Truth and Alternatives</a> and the book recommended there <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096BCVPG/">The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture</a>.</p>

<p>The Old Testament religion is not a religion of faith, so you can believe whatever you want.  It is a religion of ethics and values.  If you are atheist, read <a href="/mikraite/God_for_Atheists.html">God for Atheists</a>.</p>

<p>The purpose of religion is to convey values.  Read the Old Testament with your children and use this to convey Arkian values to them.</p>

<p>The <a href="/test.html">Old Testament test</a> makes sure that Arkians at least know the basic stories in the Old Testament.</p>
`				,
			},
			path: {
				title: 'The Arkian Path',
				content: `\
<blockquote>
<p>Be fruitful and multiply</p>
</blockquote>
<cite>Genesis 1:28</cite>

<p>Since the Arkian purpose is to be a family ark, the first step is to form a family.  This is particularly difficult for men who aren't psychopaths.  So I will describe the 3 categories of countries/cultures for finding a wife.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Poor - Good for finding a wife, bad for living.  In poor countries, women actually value a reliable provider.  Psychopaths aren't reliable, so they lose value in these countries.  And women have a motive not to be sluts in order to increase their value to providers.</p></li>

<li><p>Rich, low illegitimacy rate - Good for living, wife options vary.  Low illegitimacy rate means responsible people who value quality, and it means no dysgenics.  It also means no psychopathic reproduction, so psychopaths don't have a significant sexual advantage.  These are the only suitable places to live.  But women don't need a provider, so whether a country/culture works for finding a wife just depends on whether you appeal to the local women.</p></li>

<li><p>Rich, high illegitimacy rate - Only good for psychopaths, bad for everyone else.  All women are sluts seeking psychopaths.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Once you find a wife, the next step is to settle in a suitable place for raising a family.  A suitable place means a place not dominated by modern culture.  This can be judged by the illegitimacy rate.  So settle in a place with a low illegitimacy rate.  Japan and Mennonite communities are obvious choices.  There may be others like Korea that I haven't personally seen, so I can't judge them.</p>

<p>Japan is the only country that I have seen whose culture has not been destroyed by modern culture.  <a href="https://youtu.be/pT3h8GjyGOE">This video</a> describes Japan well.  I also recommend <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@TERIYAKIJAPAN999">TERIYAKI JAPAN</a>.  Japanese culture is far from my ideal, but it is much more tolerable than modern culture is, so Japan is an effective refuge for people who aren't modern scum.  I have developed <a href="https://www.fluentaro.com/">a website for learning Japanese</a>.</p>

<p>The Mennonites reject modern culture for religious reasons.  Since the Mennonites have the unfortunate belief that they are supposed to love everyone, even the most evil modern scum, they are easily corrupted by modern culture.  So to avoid this, they live in rural areas far from modern scum so that they can love modern scum from a safe distance.  Here is a typical <a href="https://youtu.be/BRty645Iis8">Mennonite church service</a>.  You can learn about Mennonites from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LK7GJWO">this book</a>.  Find Mennonite churches <a href="https://churchindex.org/">here</a>.  I recommend that everyone visit a Mennonite church just to see it, but the only effective way to settle among the Mennonites is to join them.</p>

<p>Once you have settled down, if you aren't already Arkian, then become Arkian.  This puts you in a position to pass Arkian values to your descendants.  If you have settled in a country like Japan, this will give your children a distinct identity from the Japanese.  While I personally like living in Japan, I would not want my descendants to become Japanese because Japanese values are too different from mine.  For Arkians who join the Mennonites, the Arkian religion is serves as a backup plan in case any of your children want to leave the Mennonites but still want to retain good values.</p>
`				,
			},
			go: {
				title: 'Go Test',
				content: `\
<p>The second test is the <a href="/go.html">Go</a> test.  I was a fairly good chess player and I know most traditional games of skill, and Go is by far the best.  Go tests for intelligence, judgement, perseverance to build a skill, and ability to prioritize.  The typical modern person will not have the self-discipline to develop skill in Go, so this test eliminates such people.</p>

<p>But Go is about more than intelligence.  For critical thinking, intelligence is not enough.  One must learn to be critical of all ideas including one's own ideas.  This is only developed by experiencing the failure of ideas.  Things like math and puzzles don't provide this.  But competitive games are optimal for providing negative feedback for bad ideas, through losing the game.  This forces skepticism of ideas which is required for critical thinking.  Here is evidence to support Go:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The cognitive reflection test (CRT) is designed to test the tendency to resist intuitive incorrect answers through reflective reasoning. The CRT consists of three questions, each of which has an intuitive but wrong answer, and the correct answers require less impulsive and more reflective thinking. It captures not only thinking ability, but also personal thinking style and characteristics.</p>

<p>The first remarkable result of our survey was the average CRT score. The scores for the general population are usually below 0.7 (e.g., de Mel et al., 2010) and the test has been described as “demanding” (Kahan, 2013). Finance professionals score better (1.87, Kirchler et al., 2016) and students of top American universities score around 2 on average (e.g., the average score of MIT students in Frederick, 2005, was 2.18). The mean score among Go players was substantially higher, 2.51 (SD = 0.05), even higher than for expert chess players (2.08; Campitelli & Labollita, 2010). To the best of our knowledge, this is larger than all previously measured values for subject groups.</p>
</blockquote>
<cite><a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10494937/">Cognitive Reflection and Theory of Mind of Go Players</a></cite>

<p>CRT sounds a lot like critical thinking.  Teach children Go to develop their critical thinking.</p>

<p>For learning Go, one can also read books to learn strategies.  And playing games allows one to learn how to apply what one reads.  This is another critical skill, learning how to apply what one learns passively in an active environment.</p>

<p>Arkian parents should teach their children Go.  Video games generally destroy children's ability to concentrate while Go increases the ability to concentrate.  I think Go is the best mental exercise for children, and would result in more intelligent adults.</p>

<p>In the Old Testament, Amos 5:15 says "Hate evil and love good, and establish judgement in the gate.".  Hating evil and loving good are not enough.  One needs to have the judgement to distinguish between the two.  The game of Go is fundamentally about developing judgement using analysis, experience, and study.  The reason that children play games is to develop skills, and the skill that Go teaches is the skill of developing judgement.  I believe that judgement is critical for correctly understanding and applying religion, so children who play Go will have a better understanding of their religion as adults.</p>

<p>Most Go resources advocate playing Go for all ages.  I personally do not.  I think games are mostly for children, while adults should focus on more practical things.  So then why have a Go test for adults to become Arkian?  Because the Go test just isn't that hard.  A reasonably intelligent adult should be able to study Go and pass the test after a few weeks of serious study.  Passing the test proves that he is serious about joining and that he is reasonably intelligent.  Once he passes the test, he can forget about Go except for teaching it to his children.</p>
`				,
			},
			children: {
				title: 'Make Your children Arkian',
				content: `\
<p>Another requirement is to promise to try to make your children Arkian.  This is what makes the Arkian idea work across generations.  For your children to become Arkian, they must also promise to try to make their children Arkian, and so on across generations.  Making their children pass the Arkian tests requires children to be raised decently.</p>

<p>Not all of one's descendants will be Arkian.  The worst won't be.  The goal is simply to make sure that at least some of one's descendants won't become modern scum.</p>
`				,
			},
			webite: {
				title: 'Preserve This Website',
				content: `\
<p>The last requirement is preserve this website by having a local copy.  This website is the core expression of the Arkian idea.  It serves the same role that scripture does in a religion.  Future Arkians can read this website to understand what this is all about.</p>

<p>This website is in source control.  It should be treated as a living document and be updated as needed.  No matter what changes are made, older versions will still be preserved in source control.</p>
`				,
			},
			ethnicity2: {
				title: 'An Arkian Ethnicity?',
				content: `\
<p>My original vision was to form an Arkian ethnicity.  This would be ideal, but it is just a fantasy in the modern world.  I explained this fantasy in <a href="/old/">my old "about" pages</a>.</p>

<p>The current approach of saving one's family line is more modest and is meant to be more practical.  This was the approach taken by Abraham in the Old Testament.  The description of the growth of monotheism in the Old Testament starts with a small family that then grows into clan and then into a substantial population and finally into a nation/ethnicity.  This would be my dream for Arkians.</p>
`				,
			},
		},
	},
};
		</script>
	</head>
	<body>
		<script> header() </script>
		<div content>
			<h1><a href="about.html">Arkian - A Family Ark</a></h1>
			<hr>
			<h2>Contents</h2>
			<div toc>
			<script> showToc(content) </script>
			</div>
			<hr>
			<script> showContent(content,2) </script>
			<hr>
			<p>I would love to discuss the Arkian idea further with anyone who is interested.  My email is <a href="mailto:fschmidt@gmail.com">fschmidt@gmail.com</a>.</p>
		</div>
	</body>
</html>
author	Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@gmail.com>
date	Sun, 01 Mar 2026 10:32:28 -0700
parents	75c09b297e83
children	5632a0ec20b5