In today’s monologue, I’d like to explore a concept that’s been lurking within the darker, harder to access, regions of my brain for years – and yes, I realize that this post might come across as silly; I’m just putting it out there anyway.
I won’t claim it’s an original idea; surely, other great minds have stumbled upon it, but I did stumble upon it independently and that should count for something.
It’s the concept of “trait tokens.”
Every human, nay, every mammal (and maybe even some birds) is a collection of traits. For the most part, we all have the whole set, but the tokens vary in potency according to the overall character of the individual.
For example, I’m a kind person in general, so my “Kindness” token is a powerful one. However, I also have a “Meanness” token, an “Anger” token and a “Jealousy” token. In other words, we all have the capability of manifesting all the traits, but to varying degrees.
So far, this is nothing new; y’all already knew this. My take is that when we integrate into a society, it’s not so much as individuals, but as a set of trait token. Our trait token are the ones that actually interact with others and with society in general.
There really is no such thing as an “individual” beyond an arbitrary label we assign to a fleeting collection of cells and trait tokens as they happen to align at any given moment. For the sake of convenience, we assume there’s some continuity.
Trait tokens, on the other hand, do exist – and whether their existence is strictly a “social construct” or a concrete entity of nature is mostly irrelevant to the matter at hand; it is THEY that interact with each other and create societies – or destroy them.
Cultures and races vary in the proportions of various trait tokens they’re composed of. Like “individuals,” societies/ethnicities/nations are also collections of trait tokens.
When large numbers of people from one society migrate to a different society, their trait tokens will impact the native pool of trait tokens. As “individuals,” these migrants will vary, but in numbers, the results are predictable. The migrants are vehicles for the trait tokens.
Similar trait tokens are cohesive; they coalesce and form large blocks, and these blocks define the host societies.
“Low trust” and “high trust” can be viewed as tokens. “Public lust” or “chivalry” can be viewed as tokens as well. In determining what can be considered a “token,” we should ask, “does this trait have currency in society? Does it, or its lack thereof, impact society?”
Of course, a person can change the composition of his own trait tokens. He can do it through years of self-discipline, the use of mentors or changes in life circumstances. His TENDENCY to have a particular trait token composition is set in genetics and his upbringing.
On the Left, “Whiteness” appears to be viewed as a “trait token.” This is how Leftists excuse themselves from glorifying the slow genocide of White people. “We don’t hate White PEOPLE; we just hate the White TOKEN!” I don’t know if any Leftists have put it that way, but I’m pretty sure that’s what they mean when they oppose “Whiteness.”
The problems with that, as I see it, are a) “Whiteness” is too broad to be a token and, b) all the “negative” aspects of “Whiteness” that the Left wants to get rid of happen to be POSITIVE traits.
Treating a wide collection of tokens as one token, as Leftists do with “Whiteness,” is a clear sign that they truly are attacking White people and not just a specific token.
I realize this post might seem like I’m using a lot of words to express the obvious, but I do believe that the concept of “trait tokens” can be useful at the societal level.
