There are a lot of reasons why it is unusually urgent to destroy or weaken melting pots and create secure tribal areas.
This page will describe one of those reasons.
This is very strictly a melting pot archetype. As there are developmental parallels between individuals and melting pots, of course there must be some indigenous version of this archetype, but it is not readily visible.
When/if appropriate, a demonstration of the archetype will be given on this page.
As melting pots developed over history, there were certain failsafes built into them. It’s not clear if these failsafes are a natural function of melting pot development or if they are inserted by individuals.
A ‘button down’ mechanism is just a series of steps designed to reduce the ability of various parties to interfere in some process.
A common example is the ‘dead man’s switch’ on a locomotive’s controls. A driver has controls to guide the train. If he or she dies, i.e., if death interferes, the driver releases the control and a dead man’s switch is triggered, stopping the train.
Similarly, Jeffrey Epstein’s butler created a dead man’s switch for Epstein’s ‘black book’. The butler developed a fast growing cancer as the case was unfolding, https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/mesothelioma/ and he created a mechanism whereby the ‘black book’ which authorities were trying to hide would be released when he died. It may have been a friend he trusted with the task, it could have also been some sort of technical feat, either way the documents were released within a few hours of his death.
Melting pots developed successfully for thousands of years. A melting pot would develop, indigenize, then consume or be consumed, on and on throughout history. Because there is no longer space in which to indigenize, new processes have started.
The archetype that will be described here is dependent on language. It evolved, perhaps as a natural safety mechanism, perhaps as a tool or weapon, in response to the coalescing of various trends in melting pot development.
The specific trends include a) the declining space available in which melting pots can expand, b) human instincts from previous eras which have carried over into melting pots, and various others.
Looking at the globe, at the expansion of various melting pots, certain key strategies become evident. Melting pots have used their respective resources to cement the cultural dominance of their root society in each area they colonize or consume, sometimes overtly, sometimes in careful ploys that are restricted to certain groups.
The most successful melting pot so far, in global terms, has been that which sprung up out of Britain. Han Chinese have had great local success, but til now they have not managed the global influence of the British derived society.
This group has colonized most of those frontier areas that would seem to be required for a globally dominant melting pot, e.g. Australia, the Americas, etc.
Part of this colonization involved a clever process, described elsewhere, of using government force to inflict the colonizer’s worldviews on its victims.
The examples used on other pages of this website involve the development of an inaccurate psychological paradigm, i.e., replacing analytical psychology with pharma psychiatry, for the purpose of gaining control of key features in the victim cultures.
This allowed the British melting pot to dominate vast parts of the globe, but it also created the facility for using ‘button down vulnerabilities’ against the root of that melting pot.
In other words anybody who is sufficiently fluent in that melting pot can disable it. It is a process that has occurred many times in history, but as space for expansion becomes less and less, these vulnerabilities become easier to initiate, and more immediately destructive.
When constructing a button down device there are always a lot of factors to consider. For example a dead man’s switch on a train might not activate if the conductor’s body fell forward onto the switch, in fact if the switch is the accelerator then the conductor’s body might accelerate the train, not stop it.
The first button down switch on a train would have been simple. A conductor on an early train died while driving, and a simple switch was quickly developed to deal with future incidences of the problem.
As railroads hired more and more extra employees, some of those people had spare time in which to refine the switch, according to whichever variables they prioritized, and it became more elaborate.
A person can look, in retrospect, at how these mechanisms have developed, and guess various things about current development i.e., about how such mechanisms are, or might be, developed.
For example, the train’s dead man’s switch is a clear predecessor to things like self driving cars. A self driving car contains lots of obvious, easily visible elements from various technological steps, but it also has the train switch as a discrete part of its heritage. In other words, any self driving car necessarily has mechanisms that are a result of concerns about loss of ‘central brain’ guidance in the vehicle.
Early ‘melting pots’ were not like today’s melting pots. 20,000 years ago two societies would clash and sometimes one or both would be left with live individuals to assimilate, or consume. Even though there was what would be called ‘a melting pot effect’, there was never any local question about which side was consuming and which side was being consumed.
Today’s melting pots are the same at their core, but superficially they try to pay respect to the philosophical rules of the day e.g. ‘democracy’, ‘equality’ etc.
To do this, they stratify society in lots of ways. They ‘specialize’ individuals in narrow roles which allows an authority, in another field or role, to control their behavior.
Returning to the example given elsewhere on this website, in the British rooted melting pot, which currently dominates ‘official’ scientific development in most countries, one ‘specialization’ involved a distortion of analytical psychology.