Chapter 6    The Unity Project and the Genetic Testing Initiative Explained

The Unity Project, mentioned over coffee that morning, was passed as a resolution by the Judges Council of Final Review a year and a half previously, in late summer 2014, following extensive discussion of an initiative presented to The Advisory Panel by a well-respected University of Cellinara professor of history. The resolution had served to redefine or, more accurately, to clarify and to reawaken the identity of the commune of Cellinara.

The uniquely organized commune of Cellinara had for hundreds of years welcomed a diverse variety of specially gifted people from all areas without regard to the place of their origin. That was a secondary consideration if it was considered at all. However, the years 2012-2014 witnessed a global phenomenon that could not be ignored. The swelling influx of uninvited immigrants and refugees from troubled countries had been overwhelming the countries receiving them, especially the nations of Europe.

The clash of cultures and values this influx brought with it had created much resistance, anger, and chaos, not to mention increased violence, which bred more anger and even hatred of those who insisted on being allowed to enter lands and societies completely different from those they were fleeing.

Many of the societies thereby affected had been drawn into economic and political disruptions that threatened the very existence of most of those societies. This situation became a wake-up call to the governing authority and residents of Cellinara. There was a general feeling that a policy must be in place to deal with the possibility of such events and a workable plan to prevent them from occurring. The Unity Project initiative was presented in response to this call for a new policy.

The Judges were required to provide a written public White Paper with every resolution that met with a twelve-judge positive review and thus became codified into law. The White Paper on the Unity Project stated, in essence:

Cellinara, founded on a unique social design, has been a successful prototype of a society governed by the ideals of social justice and benevolent hierarchical leadership. Over the years, the commune has proven its extraordinary success in every aspect. We believe that, after thorough research and debate, the cultural homogeneity of our society must be maintained to ensure a stable and cohesive social order.

The social evolution of the species has reached a point where it must prioritize the stability of social systems so that those systems may focus full energy on anticipating and meeting the challenges of the future. We are convinced that cultural homogeneity is a fundamental requirement of social stability. We feel, therefore, that social Justice is served by maintaining cultural homogeneity.

We, as Judges, have approved this initiative, which requests a codified policy to maintain the cultural homogeneity of the Cellinara commune. We have shown a consensus opinion of fifteen Judges. The resolution is hereby passed through unanimous support and will be codified into law.

Such was the content of the White Paper justifying the Unity Project initiative.

The Unity Project, as it was referred to, provided the basis for the logic of the present initiative dealing with genetic testing. Matteo had sought to show how the proposed genetic testing initiative would logically follow from the premises of the Unity Project resolution.

Matteo would argue that selecting for descendants of specific genetic lineages would enhance the likelihood of creating a more uniform cultural homogeneity due to genetic similarities; by creating similar propensities in the areas of behavior, creating a tendency toward similar value systems, and a tendency toward similar perceptions of social responsibilities.

In short, people who are built similarly will develop in predictably similar ways. This had a scientific and empirical reasonableness to it. It was well received as a compelling argument by the Advisory Panel and would be seriously considered in weighing the pros and cons of the issue at hand.

After a few weeks of debate and research, the results of the Advisory Panel's study regarding the genetic testing initiative were sent to the Judges. The role of the Advisory Panel is limited to debate, research, and the presentation of research results. Therefore, the Panel never offered any opinions or suggestions to the Judges.

Their presentation may include factual information, charts, diagrams, lists, tables, statistical data, and any other tools that the judges would need to form an objective, intelligent analysis of information. The Judges demanded that all Advisory Panel input be free of subjective opinion, bias, and prejudice on any matter that was presented to them for review. The Panel was under oath to do so.

The role of the Judges is to decide how to use that information to come to a fair and intelligent decision, without bias or prejudice, to codify or not codify into law the matter at hand. This is how the final review process worked. This is the reason the selection of only qualified candidates who sought positions on the Judges Council and the Advisory Panel was so critical, and why the super-majority was used in the nomination process, and why the nominees must pass strict requirements before being certified as a qualified candidate for office. It was a fair and intelligently designed system that did not allow the possibility of incompetence or corruption.

After a few weeks of review, the Judges offered their decision. As it turned out, the date this decision was made public in Spring 2016 came exactly eighteen months after the Unity Project resolution was made public in autumn 2014. The White Paper on the genetic testing initiative turned out to be quite lengthy and verbose. Still, it was accurately summarized in a shorter version that was made public with the understanding that the full version was available for public scrutiny.

The condensed version stated the decision as follows:

We, the Judges, have reviewed information regarding the genetic testing initiative brought before the Advisory Panel and have decided that the current restrictions placed upon candidates for admission as residents may justifiably be expanded to include genetic testing to select for or reject specific genetic markers. However, we also feel that selecting only for the haplogroup R1b-U152, although certainly representative of the hardy, resilient, and brilliant peoples who historically have settled in the area of Tuscany and adjacent lands, is too narrow a parameter to be used for selection.

Many brilliant individuals may be denied the benefits of full membership in Cellinara due to overly restrictive conditions, potentially excluding those who demonstrate the potential to contribute to Cellinara's goals and values. This arbitrary exclusion would ultimately work against our interests in attracting the best and the brightest minds. We believe that widening the parameters to include individuals with a broader spectrum of genetic markers would not necessarily disrupt cultural homogeneity.

However, we also feel that cultural homogeneity may indeed be threatened in some cases by widening the genetic parameters. Therefore, we are suggesting to the High Council that it take steps to enact a condition for continued membership in good standing for anyone admitted into Cellinara.

That condition is that any indication of potential disturbance to the cultural homogeneity of our community shall not be tolerated. The priority to be maintained is the continued stability and cohesiveness of our social order. We will accept only those who continue to show allegiance to and respect for the founding values of this community and for the importance of maintaining cultural homogeneity.

We therefore will delay judgment on the final review of this initiative until acceptable modifications have been made to the parameters used to select or to reject the genetic markers. We suggest that haplogroup types generated by groups perceived as consistently hostile, antagonistic, or incompatible with our culture and value system should be rejected. We must use good judgment in determining which groups those are.

We will summarize the spirit of our decision concisely: Cellinara will welcome those who serve our goals and values, while those who cannot be in harmony with our culture and values will be expelled.

Such was the public White Paper on the genetic testing initiative.

The modifications to the genetic parameters that the Judges had requested were made, and the suggestion regarding the rule that would set conditions upon continued membership, as voiced by the Judges, was noted by the lawmakers at The High Council. The revised initiative was then accepted by unanimous decision by the Judges and codified into law. The genetic testing would now be a part of the process to screen candidates who applied for membership into the commune.

The genetic parameters had been extended to favor those haplogroups that had a strong lineage attachment to the Pontic-Caspian steppe cultures; those people who showed high resilience to adversity and an instinct to maintain an organized and well-functioning social order; the same people who eventually moved west to populate Europe and other nearby regions.

The rejection of people from known unfriendly or otherwise antagonistic groups would still be upheld, genetics notwithstanding. It was noted that the genetic testing was to be used only as one of several screening tools and not as a sole factor in determining who will be and who will not be accepted for admission into the community.