Sunday, April 10, 2011

Two Arguments : Create Or Not Create An Occupational Ranking System


The beginning of the Industrial Revolution (as historians have dubbed the era of European and American industrialization) arguably began around 1750 AD. Over the following 210 years (from 1750 to 1960) many societies (Dominant Male Groups) in Asia, Sub Sahara Africa and the Middle East were exposed to an Occupational Ranking system. However, in South East Asia the people simply remained primarily rice farmers. In the Arab world they pretty much remained Bedouin tribal peoples. In Sub Sahara Africa, the native people remained as they were before the Europeans came: subsistence farmers and cattle herders. At the very least it must be considered remarkable that all these non-European societies (i.e. their respective Dominant Male Groups) had been exposed to an Occupational Ranking social stratification system (primarily by the British or French) during this 200 year span of the Industrial Revolution, though, for some reason (or reasons) they did not adopt this system to stratify their male group. In fact, in two countries, South Africa and Rhodesia, African tribal societies literally had daily contact with an Occupational Ranking system, yet no Occupational Ranking society developed in either of these British colonies among the native male groups.

(Note: with regard to those of African descent in America during this 200 year time span, this present discussion relates to the existing Dominant Male Groups and their corresponding societies. The Negro male group in America prior to 1964 was a subordinate male group of the American DMG. The Negro male group will figure prominently in this discussion at a later time.)

Let us create two arguments here for the rejection of non-Occupational Ranking male groups to alter their societal structure(s) to an Occupational Ranking one - like Japan began doing circa 1853.

Argument One:

Of those societies that rejected a social stratification system based on occupational ranking, tribal leaders among these various Dominant Male Groups, one by one, over the course of the 200 years spanning the Industrial Revolution, carefully, assiduously and deliberately debated the merits of an Occupational Ranking system … and all came to the same conclusion: It wasn’t for them. So it wasn’t that these societies couldn’t create this type of social stratification system. Rather, it was for a multitude of other reasons (we don’t need to know those reasons) they rejected a system that they felt couldn’t or wouldn’t replace all the benefits of the system they would be giving up (e.g. societal orders based on subsistence farming, animal husbandry and fishing).

This explanation is the least contentious. Now let us look at the theoretical argument.

Argument Two:

Occupational Ranking as a societal structure manifests as a result of a male groups’ receptiveness to it as well as their ability to adapt to it. So an Occupational Ranking social stratification system can only form if the innate-culture of the males within the male group will allow it. If this innate-culture is not present, then male groups will form non-Occupational Ranking societies. In other words:

If a male group, when exposed to an Occupational Ranking system, either fails to make an attempt to alter their non-Occupational Ranking society or fails in their attempt to form an Occupational Ranking system (i.e. the structure fails to satisfy the two primary functions a society historically has dictated it must serve under the DMG Theorem), then the male group is limited by inherited cultural traits - their innate-culture - to such a social stratification system.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Arrested Culture Defined


An Arrested culture (or non-Occupational Ranking) refers to a male group (males racially, linguistically and religiously similar) that has an innate resistance to creating a societal structure based on Occupational Ranking of their Dominant Male Group (DMG). Essentially, male groups of an Arrested culture cannot create four conditions required to sustain an Occupational Ranking system.

(1) The majority of the males live in urban settings; (2) Coin currency; (3) The society is governed by written laws; (4) Occupational titles stratify the DMG.

Male groups of an Arrested culture may exist within a Restless culture [specifically in an urban environment] if they are artificially provided for by an Occupational Ranking male group (i.e. provided occupations). Generally, these males are reduced to selling their labor.

Male groups of Arrested cultures generally favor living arrangements that will be rural and their societal structures based primarily on animal husbandry, subsistence farming, fishing, and/or hunting and gathering.


The list of countries (male groups) below represents male groups which did NOT re-structure their societies to Occupational Ranking between 1853 (the year Japan began re-structuring its social stratification system) to 1964 (the year Compulsory Inclusionism was created). These male groups I am presuming are of an Arrested culture. In making the list below, the presumptive test I used to determine the male groups of an Arrested culture is based on the following criterion:

1. What if any movement was there by the DMG of each respective country toward an Occupational Ranking system between 1853 and 1964? In other words, which of the four criteria for the existence of an Occupational Ranking system (1) The majority of the males live in urban settings; (2) Coin currency; (3) The society is governed by written laws; (4) Occupational titles stratify the DMG - were present in their respective societies by 1964.

(As to why 1853 is being used here as a demarcation point, click here.)

Note: Each star below represents one of the four necessary characteristics of an Occupational Ranking system that was met (i.e. if the majority of the males of the society are urban, they get one star, if there is coin currency, two stars, etc.)

N/A means either no Occupational Ranking system existed there, or, the society (country designation) had yet to be established at that time.

1) India and Pakistan (People of)
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - **

2) Turkey (People of)
In 1853 - ***
In 1964 - ***
* Present day Turkey was once part of the Byzantine Empire, which was a major recipient of Roman and Greek (European) populations before, during and after the fall of the Roman Empire. When the Byzantines were overrun by invading Arabs, Islam became the dominant religion and, because of this difference, they (those Turks of European descent) were - and remain today - permanently separated from their cultural cousins in Europe. This religious difference also will not allow the Turks to become part of the Extended Male Group (EMG) to their European cousins - a fact which has affected their standard of living considerably). Moreover, mainly because of much mixing of the European and Arab blood, the economic arena became less suitable for Occupational Ranking (this is not to imply “blood" determines an Occupational Ranking system. Rather, it is the “appearance” of the male - his race - that assigns him to his male group. His abilities and desires then will be shaped by his male group’ social stratification system).

3) Iran (Persians)
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - N/A

4) Chinese
In 1853 - **
In 1964 - **

5) Koreans
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - **

6) Indochina & South East Asia (People of)
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - N/A

7) Mixed Race European/Hispanic of Central and South America
In 1853- **
In 1964 - **

8) Southern Italy & Mediterranean Islands (People of)
In 1853 - **
In 1964 - **
* Southern Italy and Northern Italy have very distinct cultural differences. To the North is European in its ancestry, whereas in the South it is largely a “mixture” of Arab and European. (Those who visit Southern Italy today will notice that there is little resemblance of the people currently living there to the people represented in the statues depicting the ancient Romans.) This mixture has apparently created the dividing line between two cultures. That is, mixing a non-Occupational Ranking with an Occupational Ranking culture, the offspring will become part of the non-Occupational Ranking culture. At least this is what is being suggested at this point in time. What else could explain the difference between north and south Italy?

9) Societies of the Middle East - of Arab descent (includes
Israelis of non-European descent)

In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - N/A
* Virtually none of the present day Arab states were formed in 1853.

Israeli society - the Occupational Ranking aspect of it - benefited from extensive European emigration beginning in 1947. It is these European immigrants, clearly, who form the nucleus of the present day Occupational Ranking system in Israel.

10) Malay Archipelago region - Southeast Asia
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - N/A

11) Mongolia
Central & South America Indigenous Indians
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - N/A

12) All Sub Sahara African males (excluding Pygmies and Bushmen).
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - N/A
* The Hausa of Northern Nigeria deserve some special attention as they have hundreds of year’s of history prior to European association of organizing their society by occupational titles. However, it must also be noted that virtually all of the males who did have occupational titles only worked their occupational crafts on a part-time basis, requiring farming to provide for the subsistence needs of themselves and their families. Their urban centers were small by European comparison, but by Sub Sahara comparison were quite large, numbering 10,000 to even 50,000 in the 1950’s (In 1952, the city of Kano had an estimated population in excess of 150,000).
* More than 99% of Sub Sahara African males lived in rural environments in 1960.

* Trading in Africa by Europeans was done mainly with shells (Cowries) from the 16th to the 18th Century.

13) Japan
In 1853 - N/A
In 1964 - ****

As of 1964, only Japan has emerged as an Occupational Ranking male group outside of the European race.

These male groups have been excluded since they are primarily associated with being hunters and gathers.

1) All Native Pacific Island Tribes (Excluding Japanese)
2) Aborigines (Australia)
3) New Guinea Tribes
4) North American indigenous Indians
5) Pygmies and Bushmen

Restless Culture Defined


"Occupational Ranking is an innate-culture of the male group (excluding females) that allows the male group to achieve the necessary grouping and organizational behavior conducive to the production of "wealth." Wealth is basically the production of marketable material items. The better the male group is at stratifying itself under occupational titles, the more marketable wealth they will - theoretically - be capable of creating."

Male groups with a [innate] Restless culture will adapt to and/or create an Occupational Ranking social stratification system. The following racial groups, as of 1964, established an Occupational Ranking social stratification system:

--Males of European descent
--Males of Japanese descent

Though race does not have any bearing on intelligence (at least I don't believe it), nor does it make a group superior or inferior to that of another racial racial group, with respect to the establishment of a social stratification system, however, it does stand to reason that all peoples of the same racial group should exhibit as distinct peoples ... the same resistance level to an Occupational Ranking system i.e. the capacity to create or not create this type of social stratification system.

Example I: If one Caucasian male group (German for example) can create a social stratification system based on Occupational Ranking then, it stands to reason, ALL people of this racial group should also be able to create a system of similar structure.

Example II: If an African male group (Ibo tribe for example) has shown complete resistance to creating an Occupational Ranking system to stratify their male group, then it stands to reason that ALL people of their racial group would also show a similar level of resistance.

* The primary determinate as to whether a racial group can adapt to an Occupational Ranking system is the innate culture of the male group as a whole, which manifests among the group members when a social stratification system is structured. Additionally, there does seem to be a demonstrable amount of empirical data (e.g. the entire history of the black race in America; the American Indian tribes) that more than suggest the following to be true: No amount of time, money or education can move a male group from an Arrested culture to a Restless culture. The question is, which male groups' innate culture will not allow for an Occupational Ranking social stratification system?

I have created two arguments to help explain why male groups, when exposed to an Occupational Ranking culture did not adopt the system for their own stratification system (like the Japanese). You can choose which argument best suits your temperament. >> CLICK HERE

Regardless which argument you accept, the fact still remains that the countries listed at this link - CLICK HERE - did not create an Occupational Ranking system when they were exposed to the Restless culture.

Occupation Ranking Social Stratification System

I want to emphasize ... that my theoretical outline here on creating Occupational ranking societies only concerns pre 1964. I am not going to try to make sense out of Western governments' massive monetary intervention into the third world societies i.e. trying to force them to create Occupational Ranking structures. This effort began in earnest in the early 1960s ... and continues to this day.

For a DMG (pre 1964) to successfully stratify their male group by occupational titles and be capable of achieving long-term stability in the political and economic arenas, four cultural attributes seem to be crucial:

1) Since all of recorded human history suggests that societies exist to provide a ranking system for the males within the DMG, the members of the DMG must accept occupational titles as true-ranking symbols. In other words, the occupational titles must accurately reflect male status among his male group members and, concomitantly, members of his male group must accept the status being conveyed through the title.

2) Enough males of the DMG must be willing to abide by written laws. The written laws must be treated by enough of the males of the DMG, and particularly those in their prime years, as boundaries for allowed behavior, rather than treated as mere suggestions.

3) Currency must exist to facilitate the exchange of products and services within the society. The distribution of the currency within the society must also accurately reflect upon the status individual males achieve within their DMG - achieved with the remuneration received through the occupational title. It need also be said that the currency produced within an Occupational Ranking system would - theoretically - be inextricably tied to the structural integrity of the DMG. In other words, since the MODG (Males Outside the Dominant Group) do not possess true-status within the societal structure of the DMG, they would - theoretically - compromise the ranking system of the DMG if allowed to possess status symbols (occupational titles) in any significant numbers within the DMG environment. In an Occupational Ranking system, the currency is part of the status environment, therefore, if the status environment is compromised - by the MODG - then it logically follows that the currency must also become compromised (lose its value).

4) The vast majority of the males will favor living in urban settings. Living in urban settings would also necessitate the creating of occupational titles - the means by which to distribute the resources (i.e. the currency/coins).

Friday, March 19, 2010

Compulsory Inclusionism Defined

Compulsory Inclusionism was created on July 2, 1964, when President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act. This Civil Rights Act was followed by two more "compulsory iclusionism" Acts of Congress (Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Fair Housing Act 1968), which served to solidify the complete across-the-board integration rights of all the MODG (Males Outside the Dominant Group) into the political and economic arenas of America's Dominant Male Group (White Christian males).

Compulsory Inclusionism is basically defined as follows:It is a theoretical political and economic system, (essentially an experiment in human nature) requiring legislative fiat to allow Impingers (MODG and females) integration rights into an existing society's Dominant Male Group - whose societal structure is based on Occupational Ranking. Compulsory Inclusionism rejects the existence of true-status (which asserts that only members of the same male group may possess status within a male group structure).

The three Compulsory Inclusionism laws mentioned above (Civil Rights Act 1964, Voting Rights Act 1965 and Fair Housing Act 1968) each had distinct integration objectives with respect to American DMG societal structure, which were as follows:

1) Civil Rights Act - 1964
The main objective of this piece of legislation is aimed at economic inclusionism. This is to be accomplished by compelling the American DMG (white Christian males)to integrate their economic arena - that is, their occupational titles/status symbols, with the MODG (Males Outside the Dominant Group). It is also aimed at ending the American males’ preference for racial segregation in most parts of the country related to public accommodations (e.g. community swimming pools, libraries). Note: In the late 1960s we begin to see females, both Negro females and Euro females, also beginning to assert their new “right“ to integrate into the DMG titles using the wording of this Civil Rights Act.

2) Voting Rights Act - 1965

The main objective of this legislation is to force the American DMG to allow the MODG to participate - essentially to elect its own people - in the DMG's political arenas, locally, statewide and nationally. It also, concomitantly, allows for greater numeric representation of the MODG into American political titles.

3) Fair Housing Act - 1968

The main purpose of this legislation is to force the Americans to allow the MODG to live in and roam freely in their residential communities.

For Potential Problems in launching Compulsory Inclusionism, I have included this addendum :

Thursday, December 3, 2009

On Race and the DMG Theorem


Prior to 1964, a male group (racially, linguistically and religiously similar) is the foundation for which all human societies were structured. Since all of human history had established a consistency with regard to not only the creation of a society’s structure but also maintaining its stability, that consistency and stability can be embodied in the following Theorem:

Dominant Male Group Theorem

When a male group (males similar racially, linguistically and religiously) establishes claim to a geographic area, this group then seeks to create a society. When the male group creates its social stratification system a society is then formed. When the society is formed, the male group that created it becomes the Dominant Male Group. There are two primary functions a society serves, which allows it to achieve stability and longevity: (1) Stratify the Dominant Male Group; (2) Perpetuate the Dominant Male Group.

Example: In America (prior to 1964) the Dominant Male Group (DMG) members are the Caucasian, English speaking Christian males. Other male group(s) living within the geographic area claimed by the DMG (e.g. American Indian tribes, American Negro male group, etc.)... are subordinate male group(s)to the DMG.

The DMG Theorem was never codified into law but rather practiced as part of tradition throughout human history, with no known deviations from it prior to 1964.

The political/economic system of Compulsory Inclusionism was created July 2, 1964.

Forcing the American DMG to accept race and gender-nullification(1964 Civil Rights Act), effectively ended the DMG Theorem as the primary social stratification system in the United States.