Towards a Global Biopolitics?: A review of Yuval Harari’s Sapiens, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

European Restlessness and Dynamism

Harari has much good to say about empire in general and about the European colonial empires in particular: “Modern science flourished in and thanks to European empires” (316). This is a point Harari repeatedly drives home: only Europe had the values and institutions necessary to kick-start the positive feedback loop of science, empire, and capital which could create the modern world as we know it.

Harari’s analysis of Western dynamism is entirely congruent with Prof. Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, particularly in his emphasis on the psychological factors behind European dynamism. Harari:

Both scientist and conqueror began by admitting ignorance — they both said, “I don’t know what’s out there.” They both felt compelled to go out and make new discoveries. And they both hoped the new knowledge thus acquired would make them masters of the world. (317)

Harari also reflects Duchesne’s perspective in his observation that non-Europeans, such as the Turks, Persians, Indians, and Chinese, showed little interest in exploration or in creatively exploiting technological breakthroughs. The Chinese for instance for centuries used gunpowder only for fire-crackers (293, 377). Harari says of the massive treasure ships of the Chinese admiral Zheng He, which explored the Indian Ocean during the fifteenth century:

The Zheng He expeditions proved that Europe did not enjoy an outstanding technological edge. What made Europeans exceptional was their unparalleled and insatiable ambition to explore and conquer. (324)

Compare Duchesne who links the expansionist ethos of the West to Indo-European warrior culture:
The expansionist aggression of the West is an inescapable expression of its roots in aristocratic men who are free and therefore headstrong and ambitious, sure of themselves, easily offended, and unwilling to accept quiet subservience. (The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, 481)

Harari notes, as does Duchesne, that non-Europeans were typically ignorant of their own history and culture, and that it was European imperialists who pioneered historical scholarship in India, Persia, and elsewhere. Harari recognizes the atrocities committed by European empires, while noting that such violence is the norm across the world and that there is no such thing as a sinless, non-violent human civilization (228). Harari repeatedly equates the imperial and scientific drives to conquer: “For the modern European conqueror, like the modern European scientist, plunging into the unknown was exhilarating” (328).

In Defense of Global Empire

Harari’s praise for European colonialism is part of a wider emphasis on the positive aspects of historic empires, such as the Roman and the Islamic, and of the emerging “global empire.” He sees a broad trend in human history towards ever-more globalization and “the unification of humankind,” as a necessary consequence of communications technologies.

Harari is aware of the deep-seated ethnocentric tendencies in human beings: commonly (as in the Old Testament; see note 20, p. 55), a tribe’s word for “human” only applies to fellow tribesmen (219)! Nonetheless, he sees the development of empires and religions of supposed universal altruism (such as Cyrus the Great’s Persia or the Buddhist religion) as positive developments. One cannot deny that world-empires have often enforced peace, enabled fruitful cultural exchange, and granted human societies scale, notably the connecting of intelligences, beyond individual tribes.

Harari describes an “imperial cycle” whereby the Roman, Islamic, and European colonial empires developed — but he is strangely silent on the fall of these empires (236–37)! There is not a word on how empires, so often, end with the dissolving of the founding nation. The Roman Empire, after all, collapsed in no small part because the deracinated and miscegenated “Roman citizens” of the late empire had lost their sense of identity and patriotism, and were no longer willing to fight and die for their people and state, as had those of the Republic. The achievements of the Islamic Golden Age, for their part, were largely the work of non-Arab Greek and Persian scholars, and the Islamic World soon became an obscurantist and inbred backwater (no doubt in part due to the abominable Middle-Eastern custom of marrying one’s niece; in contrast the Catholic Church systematically discouraged cousin marriage). And now, indeed, the collapse of the European colonial empires has been accompanied by the physical replacement of Europeans in Western nations across the world, regardless of whether the nation in question even had an empire.

Harari argues that the modern world is being economically, ideologically, and culturally united, under an emerging rootless cosmopolitan elite:

The global empire being forged before our eyes is not governed by any particular state or ethnic group. Much like the Late Roman Empire, it is ruled by a multi-ethnic elite, and is held together by a common culture and common interests. Throughout the world, more and more entrepreneurs, engineers, experts, scholars, lawyers, and managers are called to join the empire. They must ponder whether to answer the imperial call or to remain loyal to their state and to their people. More and more choose the empire. (232)

The last line bears repeating: national elites will more and more side with rootless oligarchic interests rather than those of their fellow citizens. The passage is of the utmost realism and marks Harari as a serious thinker. Harari’s global “empire” is much the same as that denounced by the French anti-Zionist civic nationalist Alain Soral in his 2011 work Comprendre l’Empire.[9] Julian Assange, from his own perspective as a militant for government transparency, astutely described the rise of the new global oligarchy in 2012:

The negative trajectory [is] a transnational surveillance state, drone-riddled, the networked neo-feudalism of the transnational elite — not in a classical sense, but a complex multi-party interaction that has come about as a result of various elites in their own national countries lifting up together, off their respective population bases, and merging.[10]

Soral and Assange are observing the same phenomenon as Harari, but Harari, as is common for Jews, welcomes the prospect of world-government. Incidentally, the Times of Israel reports that Jews make up a fifth of the world top 50 billionaires, only one indicator of the very substantial influence that ethnic group has in the new global elite.[11] In contrast, no other ethnic group in the global elite has a comparable combination of representation and ethnic pride.

Inevitable Authoritarianism and Challenging Orthodoxy

Harari is strong on the inevitable authoritarianism of all human societies in their enforcement of fundamental values. He provides a useful definition of (civil) religion as “a system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief in a superhuman order” (234). This definition includes the ancestral and exclusive folk religions, the Abrahamic monotheisms, and modern ideologies. The point is that any society has a set of fundamental norms, individuals are policed to follow those norms, and violators are punished. This holds true even in so-called “ideologically pluralistic” democracies with supposed protection of freedom of speech: in practice, as Carl Schmitt argued, every society has an implicit quasi-religious ideology, which is enforced in a more or less authoritarian manner. Thus, Harari (in my view rightly) classifies liberalism, communism,[12] and National Socialism as modern religions (to which I would add holocaust remembrance):

If we take into consideration natural-law religions, then modernity turns out to be an age of intense religious fervor, unparalleled missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history. The modern age has witnessed the rise of a number of new natural-law religion , such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism, and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. (254)

Harari notes that atheists are often unaware of this reality (256) and he frequently stresses the dogmatic and Christian-derived nature of liberalism (e.g. human rights as “commandments,” 257).

Harari insists that a society without an imagined order and myths is impossible (133). He astutely observes that the bulk of academic work is thoroughly incapable of thinking outside the framework of the established ideology: “The humanities and social sciences devote most of their energies to explaining exactly how the imagined order is woven into the the tapestry of life” (127). As a result, I would add, much of mainstream scholarship has a kind of theological quality, endlessly commenting on, struggling with, and making excuses for the reigning ideology’s internal contradictions and discrepancies with observed reality.

The inevitable and authoritarian nature of ideology leads to certain paradoxes in modern scientific and (pseudo-)democratic societies. A stable society, in fact, is not possible unless its members have some agreement in world-view. Yet, democracy is supposed to be ideologically pluralistic and science cannot advance without the admission of ignorance and of the imperfection of current theories. Thus, Harari says:

All modern attempts to stabilize the sociopolitical order have had no choice but to rely on either of two unscientific methods:

  1. Take a scientific theory, and in opposition to common scientific practices, declare that it is a final and absolute truth [as in National Socialism and Communism]. . . .

  2. Leave science out of it and live in accordance with a non-scientific absolute truth. This has been the strategy of liberal humanism, which is built on a dogmatic belief in the unique worth and rights of human beings — a doctrine which has embarrassingly little in common with the scientific study of Homo sapiens. (282)

Harari does not lament the authoritarianism of ideology. On the contrary: “scientific research can flourish only in alliance with some religion or ideology. The ideology justifies the costs of the research” (305). This was visible notably during the Cold War, during which superpower competition fostered aerospace research and exploration in the United States and the Soviet Union, or indeed in the Third Reich, where National Socialism’s obsession with health led to substantial medical breakthroughs.[13]

While Harari understates the objective genetic, cultural, and linguistic reality of nations, he is emphatic that shared belief, including in the nation, is a source of collective power:

Like money, limited liability companies, and human rights, nations and consumer tribes are inter-subjective realities. They exist only in our collective imagination, yet their power is immense. As long as millions of Germans believe in the existence of a German nation, get excited at the sight of German national symbols, retell German national myths, and are willing to sacrifice money, time, and limbs for the German nation, Germany will remain one of the strongest powers in the world. (406)

The inevitable authoritarianism of all societies, including liberal ones, has important implications for heretics seeking to change a society’s norms. Harari observes: “an imagined order is always in danger of collapse, because it depends on myths, and myths vanish once people stop believing in them. In order to safeguard an imagined order, continuous and strenuous efforts are imperative” (124–25). Hence the increasingly-panicked efforts of mainstream media organizations and governments to suppress dissident speech across the Western world.

Harari astutely observes that human beings do not like to have their world-view discredited and left with nothing to believe in. Rather a positive vision must also be provided: “in order to change an existing imagined order, we must first believe in an alternative imagined order” (133).

Modern Liberalism: A Deadly Cultural Virus?

Harari is also strong on many of the downsides of global modernity. We have witnessed the end patriarchy and the replacement of traditional culture by mass and youth culture. Family and local community have collapsed, their roles being replaced by the state and the market. Individuals appear more free, but with weaker social networks, their capacity to resist tyranny is in fact weaker (403). Harari emphasizes that material prosperity cannot make up for social connection:

People with strong families who live in tight-knight and supportive communities are significantly happier than people who families are dysfunctional and who have never found (or never sought) a community to be part of. (427)

He says elsewhere: “As money brings down the dams of community, religion, and state, the world is in danger of becoming one big and rather heartless marketplace” (208). Furthermore, he observes that individuals are adrift in this global world, dedicating themselves to pointless status symbols, such as large cars or having “experiences” in frequent flights to exotic destinations.

Harari observes that culture can be maladapative:

There is no proof that cultures that are beneficial to humans must inexorably succeed and spread . . . Ever more scholars see cultures as a kind of mental infection or parasite, with humans as its unwitting host. . . . They multiply and spread from one host to another, occasionally weakening the hosts or sometimes even killing them. A cultural idea — such as belief in Christian heaven above the clouds or Communist paradise here on earth — can compel a human to dedicate his or her life to spreading that idea, even at the price of death. The human dies, but the idea spreads. (269–70)

Modern liberalism, by its excessive individualism and egalitarianism, to the detriment of community, can be considered a highly-contagious cultural virus.

Conclusions: The Way Forward

Harari’s Sapiens is, with the exception of Chapter 8, a surprisingly good book and, on the whole, a solid starting point for thinking about the overall trajectory of the human species on a realistic basis informed by biological reality. The falsehoods of Chapter 8 mean I cannot endorse the book as a whole. How can one seriously contemplate humanity’s biological future if one cannot frankly recognize our biological present, in all its ethno-genetic diversity? If one sees a friend reading Sapiens, one should gently advise them to also read some works seriously examining recent regionalized human evolution and indeed gene-culture evolution.[14]

All that said, I personally found Sapiens a stimulating read for realistic thinking and forward-looking action. The modern world is one of accelerating and perpetual transformation. Globalization has led to a positive feedback loop whereby intelligent people across the world are connecting and working together to produce technological innovations. At the same time, material prosperity and liberal media have led to the collapse of traditional culture, without its replacement by a rational and adaptive culture. The birth rates of intelligent people and of productive nations across the world have collapsed. There is a race between technological innovation spearheaded by a tiny global cognitive elite and civilizational dysgenics. Furthermore, the steady spread of modern industrial civilization across the world means the extension of Westerners’ consumerist lifestyle to billions, with potentially apocalyptic environmental implications. New technological breakthroughs may help humanity to overcome the very problems raised by technology, but there is no guarantee our species will survive. We can only begin to imagine our coming biotechnological future (which Harari apparently goes into in his sequel, Homo Deus).

Harari has made a partial, if in some respects highly compromised, contribution to re-grounding our thinking in biological reality. Harari’s advocacy of “evolutionary humanism” indeed strikes me as a very good thing. The idea that humanity must progress biologically and culturally upward is not a new one, but is traceable to Plato, Oswald Mosley,[15] and William Pierce (under the term “cosmotheism”). Sapiens’ popularity in the highest circles of the global elite is indeed an interesting sign, but I am afraid the takeaway message will be mainly the blank-slatism of Chapter 8 and the advocacy of a global empire under a small, rootless international elite.

Harari himself is a practitioner of Vipassana Buddhist meditation. His philosophical preference seems quite clearly to be for “natural-law philosophies” like Buddhism or Stoicism, which seek to cultivate self-mastery and to harmonize the human spirit with the underlying reality of things, notably through spiritual exercises. Harari writes eloquently on the workings and benefits of Buddhist meditation (442) and argues that ancient religious and philosophical wisdom on happiness, such as contenting oneself with what one has, has often been vindicated by modern science (428).

This is not a bad program for the future of the human race: spiritual self-mastery, biological science, and technological and genetic progress. A fine triad.

There are also some poignant sections on the cruelty to animals and the enormous environmental damage caused by the industrial raising of livestock, which should encourage everyone to reduce meat consumption.

I came away from Harari’s book more forward-looking than ever. Are nationalists not too often vain nostalgics? Are we not like Canute commanding the tide? I thought to myself: rather than seeking to merely preserve our nations, to long for an impossible restoration, must we not learn to tap into these energies? The world will be increasingly dominated by a global elite. That seems perfectly likely: but might it not be an enlightened European elite? Could we inspire the best of our people to perpetuate their line, embrace genetic improvement, understand scientific reality, and learn the value of their heritage? Could we not convince the best of humanity of the imperative of preserving our species’ civilizational and genetic diversity, most obviously of that staggeringly fecund European fraction of mankind? Might we not then have a leading role in the world, and redirect the flow of history towards our self-preservation and flourishing?

We shall see. Harari notes that warriors and priests have often, throughout history, been able to tame the greed of the merchants in the name of higher values (209). I remark again that history is full of surprises and that those with the greatest will, with the greatest willingness to sacrifice, typically prevail over the weight of numbers. Harari observes:

The only modern ideology that still awards death a central role is nationalism. In its more poetic and desperate moments nationalism promises that whoever dies for the nation will forever live in its collective memory. (302)


[9]Alain Soral, Comprendre l’Empire: Demain la gouvernance globale ou la révolte des nations ? (Paris: Blanche, 2011).

[10]Julian Assange, Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet (New York: OR Books, 2012), 160.

[11]Gabe Friedman, “10 Jews in Forbes top 50 billionaires,” Times of Israel, March 3, 2015. https://www.timesofisrael.com/10-jews-in-forbes-top-50-billionaires/

[12]This is particularly evident with notoriously atheistic communism, with its founding prophets (Marx and Engels), sacred texts (Das Kapital), national churches (parties), gurus (Leon Trotsky), and bitter schisms (the Democratic/Leninist split, the Stalinist/Trotskyist split, the Sino-Soviet split . . .).

[13]Robert N. Proctor, The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton University Press, 2000).

[14]Some “normie-friendly” starting-points include: Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (Basic Books, 2009) and Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance (Penguin Books, 2014).

[15]Mosley wrote in 1956:

What are the means of observation available to those who are not blessed with the revelation of vision? Are they not the thoughts of great minds which have observed the working of the divine in nature and the researches of modern science which appear largely to confirm them?

Is it not possible by following such thinking and such observation of science to arrive at a new religious impulse? Can we not now see the wholeness, the harmony and the purpose of life by a process of normal thought, even more surely than the sensitive artist in the ecstasy of vision and at least as surely as the revealed faiths which have been accorded to some? Has modern man not reached the point where he requires neither prophets nor priests to show him truth ? Can he not now open his eyes and see sufficient truth to guide him, in the thought and discovery of the human intellect during nearly 3000 years of striving by the human will toward the light? Is it not at least clear that life began in a very low form and has reached a relative height by a process which it is easier to believe is inspired than the subject of an almost incredible series of chances? Is it not clear that a persistent and, in the end, consistent, movement from lower to higher forms is the process and purpose of life? It is at least what has so far happened, if we regard the process over an appreciable period of time. And if this be the purpose it solves the problem of the individual; he has no duty and should have no purpose but to place himself at the disposal and to the service of that higher purpose. (Source: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/11/colin-wilsons-the-outsider/)

35 replies
  1. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    The global empire being forged before our eyes is not governed by any particular state or ethnic group.

    You don’t say.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Not any particular ethnic group?
      Read : Who Controls the Council on foreign Relations?
      https://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-the-council-on-foreign-relations-part-1
      Conclusion :

      Summary:
      Of the forty-three(43) Council on Foreign Relations directors, twenty-eight(28) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 65%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented on the Council on Foreign Relations board of directors by a factor of 32.5 times(3,250 percent).

      I’m sure you will find similar percentages in other international organizations.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      B, when I read about anything being forged, I conjure up a blacksmith’s shop; a flame-spewing blast furnace, molten steel, an anvil and hammer, swung by a hefty fellow. [ Not dissimilar to 9/11 or Iraq: & ff. Both in their execution and alleged investigation ].

      Of course one can also take that verb, perhaps more correctly, to mean a forgery or artificial fabrication: for the ultimate benefit of ((( whoever ))).

      And @ FR: You accounted for the {{{ % }}} of the CFR’s directors: what about the remainder of its membership in critical, policy-making positions ? If memory serves, 74 of that sort were placed near Carter in his Administration.

      And what of their most often overlapping membership in the Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergers ?

      Just last Sunday Fareed graced and loaded his CNN GPS
      ” panel ” with the Chief Editor of Rothschild’s The Economist and the editor of the CFR’s quarterly Foreign Affairs.

      To keep his journalistic-imperative [im]balance he included an Expert Professor, himself necessarily a professionally surviving straw-man; to cosmetically balance [ 1 vs 2; really 3 of 3 ] these two other porn-stars. Along with their hat-tricks in logic.

      [ When I listen to their promo ” CNN the most-Trusted News “, I really hear ” Skin Cancer – the least invasive ” ].

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    “…Sapiens’ popularity in the highest circles (of) the global elite is indeed an interesting sign, but I am afraid the takeaway message will be mainly the blank-slatism of Chapter 8 and the advocacy of a global empire under (a) small, rootless international elite…”

    And that might very well be the real intention : a global elite of “rootless intellectuals” (read : Jews) to rule the world-empire, with Cultural Marxism for the deracinated masses to keep them weak and divided. In short, the age-old Jewish dream of World Dominance.

  3. Jesse
    Jesse says:

    The international global elite seem to have a habit of pushing down my throat that I must be forced to take care of people that don’t look like me.

    But why should I be forced to take care of people who don’t look like me, when I can’t afford to take care of people that look like me?

  4. Alonso
    Alonso says:

    No renuncio a la posibilidad de Redención del ser humano, pero hasta ahora todo indica que estamos condenados a deslizarnos por la “campana de Gauss” una y otra vez, hasta que no cambien nuestros paradigmas psicológicos y/o espirituales.

    En miles de años, la única evolución de los humanos ha sido una eficiente adaptación al medio ambiente (tecnología), como los virus u otros “bichos”

    ——-

    (Mod. Note: “Alonso”, could you provide a translation from Spanish to English? I’ll append it, if you wish. Most TOO readers read and write in English, not the beautiful language of Spanish, and would likely be interested in your comment. Thanks.)

    • Piedra de Rosetta
      Piedra de Rosetta says:

      “I don’t deny the possibility of redemption of the human being, but so far everything indicates that we’re condemned to continually slip down the “Bell Curve” until we change our psychological and/or spiritual paradigms.

      In thousands of years the only evolution of humans has been an efficient adaptation to the environment (technology), like the viruses and other ‘bugs’.”

      (Mod. Note: Good job, “Piedra”!)

  5. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    WW3 seems preferable to Harari’s dystopian future vision of an authoritarian Jew World Order. If he survived he would be able to experience the ‘exalted’ life of a hunter/gatherer.

  6. T. J.
    T. J. says:

    I was surfing this topic out of curiosity. . .[thinking about bedrock]. . .

    The Manhattan Skyline: Why are there no tall skyscrapers between Midtown and Downtown?

    By Marcia Anderson

    Fairly interesting- you can peruse here:

    https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2015/07/the-manhattan-skyline-why-are-there-no-tall-skyscrapers-between-midtown-and-downtown/

    Then I got that sinking feeling- better investigate Marcia Anderson:

    OK- looks White to me. . .but she is female- affirmative action presumed.

    Then I ran into another Marcia Anderson, of the mulatto persuasion. A big time go-getter!

    Major General Marcia M. Anderson has said that joining the ROTC during her time at Creighton University was one of the best things she has done in her life, for it challenged her to be a leader and role model. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Creighton and a Juris Doctorate degree from Rutgers University. She also holds a Master’s degree in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College.

    In 2011, Major General Anderson became the first African-American woman to achieve the rank of major general in the United States Army.
    Her military career spans more than three decades and includes service as a traditional member of the Army Reserve and on active duty. From her promotion in 2011 until September 2014, she served as the senior advisor to the Chief of Army Reserve on policies and programs, including budget and appropriations, personnel policies, force structure and manpower, as well as the Department of the Army and Department of Defense Matters.

    Major General Anderson has helped to influence military policy while striving for a more diverse and inclusive military. She spends time encouraging young women of all backgrounds to seek careers with the Army, whether it be the Active Army or the Army Reserve. Her understanding of the impact of deployments on service members and their families helps her when offering counsel to young service members who are finding their path.

    Major General Anderson exemplifies Jesuit ideals through her commitment to service, the development of the whole person and by seeking the magis in all things.

    As a citizen-soldier, Major General Anderson serves as Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, located in Madison, and has been active in numerous community organizations in the area. For several years, she was a member of Women In Focus, Inc., a group of professional women who raise funds for scholarships for minority youth. She is a longtime member and has served as a co-chair of the Madison Civics Club, and is a member of the board of the United Way of Dane County.

    She is a frequent public speaker, preferring to focus on high school and college populations because they are, in her view, the future of America. Major General Anderson regularly returns to Creighton to speak to young cadets and their families about her career path. She speaks about the importance of sound leadership, education, diversity and technical proficiency in the workforce, Army and the nation.

    For having provided distinguished service to Creighton and to her community with a way of life that clearly exemplifies the Credo of Creighton, and for having a personal quality that marks her as cultured and of high moral principles guided by the Jesuit ideals of being men and women for others, Major General Anderson was honored with the 2015 Creighton University Alumni Merit Award.

    Her military awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit (with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster), Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Parachutist Badge, and the Physical Fitness Badge.

    http://www.ajcunet.edu/marcia-anderson/

    Any man here willing to take orders from a creature like this?

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Thank you for the link, Trenchant. As another year ends, it serves as a reminder that with all the gains in this site’s intellectual and rhetorical firepower (largely due to the inspiring standard and example that KM represents), there are inevitable losses, too.

      In other words, would that the great Michael Colhaze were still an active TOO contributor! Had he chosen to write about Sapiens or Harari, we would not have had to endure the presence here of more than several traces of poorly suppressed admiration for an author whose “learning” and “insight” should occasion nothing but scorn.

  7. voltaire1964
    voltaire1964 says:

    “Harari argues that the modern world is being economically, ideologically, and culturally united, under an emerging rootless cosmopolitan elite…”
    Why mince words? “Cosmopolitan elite” is new-speak for Jews and their servants. If indeed this assembler of words is “admired” by the elite, it is easy to deduct the nature and the ethnicity of the admiring elite.

  8. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    @The Chinese for instance for centuries used gunpowder only for fire-crackers

    Nobody is tired of this overused trope?

  9. T
    T says:

    From the posted article…

    He [Harari] says elsewhere: “As money brings down the dams of community, religion, and state, the world is in danger of becoming one big and rather heartless marketplace” (208). Furthermore, he observes that individuals are adrift in this global world, dedicating themselves to pointless status symbols, such as large cars or having “experiences” in frequent flights to exotic destinations.

    What Harari is saying is quite remindful of the below excerpts of a 19th century article published in the US regarding a projected future united Europe. It speaks of a new nationality of ‘bond holders’ which was already then being observed arrising. To the US writer’s credit he decries this.

    ‘This new [European] “union of states” will have all the attributes of our [American] own. Where there is an even greater mixing of peoples, Asia and Europe having each contributed its contingent, they will develop the same financial ferocity and their politics will be the politics of money. Battles will be fought out at the Stock Exchange.

    and

    The social formula of the future will be bitter protection of money interests, and local patriotism replaced by a ferocious individualism.’

    From the article entitled The United States of Europe published in April, 1898, in the United States.

    The United States of Europe

    ‘…you may be sure that the financiers will step forward and arrange among themselves an international understanding. The money centres once working in union, the governments will follow, then the people.

    Was it not the “capitalists” of our country that instigated the insurrection in Cuba?

    We will see a United States of Europe, united in finance, and many political questions which today appear without possible solution (because we insist on arguing on abstract ideas – patriotism, republicanism, “jingoism”) will be straightened out by financial necessities, as surely as the mountain snow melted by the sun runs by nature’s laws in the streams and rivers to the sea.

    This new “union of states” will have all the attributes of our own. Where there is an even greater mixing of peoples, Asia and Europe having each contributed its contingent, they will develop the same financial ferocity and their politics will be the politics of money. Battles will be fought out at the Stock Exchange.

    When Cleveland’s warlike message made American securities drop on the London markets, how we became suddenly pacific as by enchantment!

    The social formula of the future will be bitter protection of money interests, and local patriotism replaced by a ferocious individualism.’

    http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=nora;cc=nora;rgn=full%20text;idno=nora0166-4;didno=nora0166-4;view=image;seq=00516;node=nora0166-4%3A1

  10. Caryl Johnston
    Caryl Johnston says:

    I have to confess that a website of the quality of this one would review this book with what to me seems a lack of critical acumen–the dissent re chap 8 notwithstanding.
    That we live in a high technology ambience is true, but are we really talking transformation here? A compelling case can be made that technology= historical stagnation. I am talking about the ability to hear uncomfortable truth and redirect one’s course– an ability strikingly absent in American governance and in USA generally.
    Secondly: the emphasis on biology is in my view, unhealthy. This view takes for granted that something like “past, present, future” is engraved in the nature of things. Actually, it’s not. It’s a gift of speech–of grammar–which testifies to the part of man’s nature that transcends nature, transcends biology.
    Finally: the ideological swamp we are living in has revived the practice of human sacrifice. Only now people are sacrificed to race, class, etc. etc.
    I think more skepticism, and more humility, is called for.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      I heartily agree with your first paragraph. I also agree that an over-emphasis on biology can lead to a dead end. However, biology has great influence on mankind. It does not determine absolutely, but it is a huge part of the makeup of man. The spiritual faculty of the intellect must operate through the material brain, and in like manner the spiritual faculties of the human operate through the racial makeup of the particular man. I’m not really sure what you mean by the seeming denial of “past, present, future.” Could you expand on that, please?

  11. T
    T says:

    The global empire being forged before our eyes is not governed by any particular state or ethnic group. Much like the Late Roman Empire, it is ruled by a multi-ethnic elite, and is held together by a common culture and common interests. Throughout the world, more and more entrepreneurs, engineers, experts, scholars, lawyers, and managers are called to join the empire. They must ponder whether to answer the imperial call or to remain loyal to their state and to their people. More and more choose the empire.

    The ‘global empire’ Harari describes was already largely achieved (at the latest) by about 1900 when the US and UK, led by powerful elements of the elites of the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish peoples, formed the ‘special relationship’ between those two countries, a relationship that is only just short of an outright political union. W T Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes of British Empire fame, in his 1901 book The Americanization of the World calculated on pgs 11 and 12 that the US and UK had between them three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German Empires. In that context, and being that the British Empire remained whole through most of 1941, neither the Central Powers nor the Axis powers of WWI and WWII respectively had any real chance against such a force. As some have alluded, it’s amazing that Germany, bearing the brunt of this applied power, got as far as it did. Being that the US and UK are largely of a commercial nature, and despite the British physical loss of its colonies, the US and UK bloc still retains this all but overwhelming economic balance of forces in its favor as opposed to other nations. And just as a united Germany, Italy, and Japan, had almost no chance against the US/UK bloc in WWII, neither does a united Russia, China, N Korea, Iran/Islam, etc, fighting against this bloc in a no doubt already intricately planned and choreographed (and rigged!) WWIII. These world wars of the past century, with their goal (amongst others) of snuffing out what remains of most national identity, are in reality simply the consolidation and expansion of this global economic hegemony achieved with the formation of the special relationship, the ultimate aim of this ’empire’, as with many past empires, being nothing less than the obtainment of total world power. ‘Mopping up’ is likely a term used amongst those elites ‘in the know’ to describe these past and projected for the future world wars. This is not to say that Germany as well as others shouldn’t have fought against it as they did, or, that it shouldn’t be fought in some fashion, but rather that people should have as much as is possible a full awareness of the nature of just what it is that they’re dealing with.

    And speaking of that, the excerpted script below from the 1976 movie Network sheds light on just what the ‘nature’ of the empire Mr Harari describes is, all to be enforced by the ever friendly controlled opposition and junior partner of Capitalists, the Marxists.

    The world is a business, Mr. Beale.

    ‘You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?! You think you’ve merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!

    You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

    It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

    Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

    You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

    What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state — Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

    We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality — one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.’

    https://archive.org/stream/americanizationo01stea#page/10/mode/1up

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork4.html

  12. T
    T says:

    …Much like the Late Roman Empire, it is ruled by a multi-ethnic elite, and is held together by a common culture and common interests.

    Mr Harari does not mention here that the ‘Late Roman Empire’ was a dictatorship and a republic in name only.

    To understand certain of the geopolitical mechanics of just how this ’empire’ Herari speaks of was brought about a person should read The New Rome and A Political Prophecy of the 48ers in America published in the United States in 1853 and 1912 respectively and linked to and described in the threads below. It’s well worth the few hours of light (but quite intriguing) reading regarding these two generally unknown works.

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes

    https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb

  13. Chonodomarius
    Chonodomarius says:

    “inbred backwater”
    Inbreeding doesn’t cause genetic defects, damaged nucleotides cause genetic defects. Inbreeding in isolation is the primary condition for the formation of separate species and sub-species, i.e. race. No reproductive isolation, no races, biology 101. Endogamy was the norm among Europeans until the present era, you’re way off on this point.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      The good or bad of inbreeding depends on how big the population is. Inbreeding of a small community is bad, inbreeding of a big nation is not.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        I was thinking the same thing when I read Chono’s comment. It’s not a bad idea to keep in mind that genes are not separate from any other aspect of the body. Whatever produces overall good health will produce healthy genes. It is not only about inbreeding within small or large communities that matters.

        To say that inferior offspring are “caused” by defective or inferior genes is kind of like putting the cart in front of the horse. It is embarrassing to see WNs, especially certain leaders, fixating on those forms of eugenics involving high tech gene manipulation. Rotting humans producing truly healthy children? I don’t think so.

        Let the plague return. It’ll separate the worthy and the unworthy. Nothing happens without a reason.

  14. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    Harari stance reminds me of Steven Pinker’s in his book “The Blankslate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature”; he attacks the environmental determinism of his fellow leftists – probably as a necessary accommodation of new and difficult to refute real scientific findings – while still making a special allowance for the black/white performance differential. And not surprisingly he denies the validity of the view of Jews as parasites in other people’s countries while not being able to marshal any cogent arguments for his denial. To stay relevant while still tending the debate in a self serving direction requires tactical adjustments: SOP.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      Yes, he said “in my view it’s not genetic.” [The black/White intelligence difference]. He had to say that to get the book published, I presume.

      I bought the book in ’02 [2002] and haven’t been able to take another look since I found (((The Truth))) in ’03 [2003].

      He did write “the effect of parents on children is 0 to 10 percent and I’m being generous about that 10 percent.” That is, the argument heredity vs. environment is over- heredity wins.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      When dealing with Jewish “intellectuals” we always should keep in mind that for them not the pursuit of objective truth, but their own ethnic interest is their prime motivator. This can indeed lead to strange contradictions in their theories. These people have lived for 2000 years among us, but they still have not acquired the fundamental principle of our civilization, which is objectivity.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      While about two dozen of us, from across the country, were excavating an extensive, ca. 8,000 year-old Cherokee settlement near Chatsworth, in the mountains of north Georgia, our Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Kelley, often spoke admiringly of his old Harvard, eminent Anthropologist Prof and mentor Coon.

      Is he the very same ? The link, regrettably, is mute on that question: though the print of the only displayed page appears contemporaneous, for the 30s or 40’s.

      Kelley, for his Harvard undergraduate studies, examined a region in West-Virginia/Kentucky, settled by the Irish. He had us all deeply intellectually engaged, and deliberately humorously misdirected, as to why none of his precise measurements of the locals’ faces and noses delivered the expected results.

      After listening to three or four, nonetheless PhD candidates’ explanations, he said: All good but none right ! As an Irishman himself, he should have deduced earlier, that their nose indexes were all off, because they all had their noses broken in bar brawls !

      A valid point for credits in American Field Methods, earned, in part, by four hours of lectures every Thursday afternoon, in the lab of the Chatsworth High School; out of the blazing sun and cooled by beverages bought in Chattanooga, Tenn.: since our particular County was dry.

      Never did meet that fellow with the banjo from the movie Deliverance; though some damned good facsimiles.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      @ Sam J.

      Also worth reading: John Baker, Vincent Sarich and J. P. Rushton on “race”. Genetic science is “closing in” on the semantic tricks of the “egalitarian left”. The looming danger lies in their future misuse of AI and related technologies.

  15. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Oswald Mosley’s “Doctrine of Higher Forms” touched on in several of his largely ignored writings finds support from books by writers as varied as Herbert Spencer, Raymond Cattell, Julian Huxley and various eugenicists including the leftist Herman Muller, and John Glad; see also Richard Weikart’s hostile but informative “Hitler’s Ethic” (2009). Humanitarian but aristocratic control of human evolution is preferable to the ideology underpinning for example the UK 2010 Equality Act.

Comments are closed.