I am writing you today regarding the emergence of what is being called the ‘alt-right’.
In particular, I would like to express my sincerest conviction that although many ‘alt-right’ grievances fall well outside the tradition of liberal humanism and are incompatible with the multiculturalist and egalitarian values that I hold in common with you, and which I believe must never be forsaken, there nevertheless remain many legitimate grievances fueling the emotive core of the alt-right — grievances which have been persistently ignored and denigrated for decades and which, if not soon granted equal footing in the arena of moral claims, may soon pose a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a civil rights discourse that to this day refuses to entertain these grievances on the grounds that they appear prima facie ‘guilty by association’.
As a matter of groundwork, I would like to remind you of the timeless wisdom that all knowledge is fallible, and that none of us are immune to becoming hopelessly beholden to myopic, fractally-wrong lines of reasoning that defy even our noblest of intentions. Evolutionary logic tells us that in order to believe something, no matter how objectively true it may be, it must first and foremost incur some survival utility. As social animals, survival utility in humans does not necessarily call for objective truth; in fact, it is often more closely linked to social utility, cognitive coherence and personal narratives of righteousness. Case in point: Religious dogma.
This in mind, I would like to engage the reader in a thought experiment before presenting my main thesis. The purpose of this is to convey the importance of opening one’s mind to ideas that conflict with one’s own narrative and worldview:
Imagine you are the captain of a large oceanliner. You are in charge of the ship’s course, making sure it is going in the right direction and that it won’t hit any icebergs. Though this is your foremost concern, in reality you are mostly engaged in making sure your passengers are happy and that operations are running smoothly. Though you have an impeccable reputation and are confident that you know the seas like the palm of your hand, you are human all the same, imperfect and fallible. Your understanding is finite and prone to reductivism; your frame of reference is locked to that of a celebrated captain looking out over beautiful seas from the ship’s beautiful helm.
Nevertheless, you can’t be at the helm at every hour. While you sleep at night, some of your crew are assigned, perhaps by lottery to which you are mostly ignorant, to man the lookout tower to scan the horizon for icebergs. (After all, you are usually too busy to engage much at all with anybody beside your immediate subordinates.) One night, a young lookout you’ve neither heard of nor met before barges into your night chamber and insists, quite out of turn, that the ship is not only on the wrong course, but may well be headed directly for an iceberg that, the lookout claims, looks so small as to be entirely negligible but which protrudes massively beneath the ocean’s surface. He says that if we don’t change the ship’s course, all will be lost.
What do you do? Tell him to scram and let you sleep? Do you mull over his opinion? Do you overcome your complacency and ascend the lookout tower with him—in the middle of the night—in an effort to try to see the iceberg from his perspective? It is a slow-moving, slow-steering ship. To alter its course would make many of the ship’s passengers very upset and would delay their arrival to the promised destination. You’re exhausted and proud, and you really don’t want to go out in your pajamas in the middle of the night to climb that lookout tower. Climbing the lookout tower is beneath you. Then again, you must never forget that the stakes are astronomical.
I am asking you to climb the lookout tower, and talk to people who who exist outside of the milieu and frame of reference which you have grown so comfortable in. What could the ‘alt-right’ possibly be so angry about? Is their naysaying simply the result of the ethnic identity they have latched their egos onto losing its unearned privilege?
I believe that if we are to remain dispassionately committed to the pursuit of real, enduring equality and harmony between peoples, we must begin adapting our worldviews to what is fast becoming an open secret—that there are indeed meaningful variations in allele frequencies between different human populations (regardless of how these populations are delineated; regardless of how fuzzy these delineations are), and that a great consilience of evidence suggests that these alleles exist as limiting factors in the expression of meaningful, life-outcome-influencing neurocognitive and psychosocial traits.
While I strongly oppose any claims of positive knowledge concerning the precise socioeconomic utilities of specific alleles and the precise nature of the black box that is ‘human intelligence’, let alone any justifications of racial discrimination on the basis of clumsy probabilities, I nevertheless find that it behooves me to speak out against our society’s headlong plunge down the ostrich hole of adhering inflexibly to the presupposition that disparities between human populations are caused by a smorgasbord of ad hoc external factors, a great many of which, it is imputed, are reducible to a pervasive climate of ‘white racism’ and ‘white privilege’.
Importantly, I don’t mean to argue that overt non-institutional racial discrimination and implicit racial bias don’t exist and aren’t problems—they certainly does exist, and they are problems that weighs heavily on my heart of hearts. However, this does not prove that racial discrimination is the root cause of disparities between human populations; nor does it disprove that there are meaningful differences between human populations which persist, and seem likely to continue to persist, in spite of our most titanic efforts to ‘level the playing field’. Thus, it would be wrong both practically and morally to deem an entire people culpable—white people—by imputing some baseless hatred in their collective essence as being the root cause of all observed racial disparities. A more parsimonious — and judicious — alternative explanation can be had by humoring the possibility that racial discrimination exists as an intrinsic, however imperfect, expression of a basic cognitive faculty—that of data-compression, also known as inductive logic—be it based on some confluence of transmitted knowledge or first-hand experience and intuition.
It is on these grounds that I believe we must end the war on ‘white racism’; we must cease to regard the hopeful post-war presupposition that human evolution ended when human history began—or else that it is ‘too gradual to matter’ — as inviolable and to be upheld at any cost. I would here define ‘antiracism’ as the sum of all cultural and institutional policies predicated on the presupposition that disparities between human populations are reducible solely to external factors, all-consuming ‘white racism’ being chief among them. This includes public policies conceived of for the express purpose of externally and disparately elevating—or ‘buttressing’—the moral esteem of one population over another, such as through the normalization of sociocultural double standards. I would go on to say that we must also cease to hold one people collectively accountable for the diminished relative socioeconomic condition of the other. We must cease the unequal, mono-directional enforcement of civil and human rights laws such as by using racial quotas, or any of its proxies, or the enforcement of hate speech legislation for only one people. We must lift the de facto restriction on private individuals from exercising on the own subjective faculties of discrimination. Put in more general terms, all public policy must be informed by a decidedly agnostic stance on questions of diversity in traits between human population; the benefit of doubt should be given no safe harbor in either absolute, and we must eschew presumptions of causality altogether.
I do not intend to present these as political grievances; rather, they are grievances about our society’s tenuous consensus on epistemological and cultural norms insinuated by the presupposition of racial sameness. Basically, white people should enjoy all the same rights as other peoples, and ‘race’ ought not be a privileged category with regards to combating discrimination; rather, racial discrimination should be regarded as a subset of a more universal faculty of discrimination—lookism. Until we are all willing to embrace bagism as conceived of by John Lennon, it is deeply unwise and unfair to improvise ad hoc anti-discrimination measures only for some forms of discrimination to the neglect of others.
The unrivaled popularity that the presupposition of racial sameness has enjoyed, even in spite of mounting incidental evidence to the contrary, is neither because it is true nor because its influential firebrands of the post-war era were stupid. Rather, it is because of the monopoly it is perceived to hold over the moral high ground—that we should collectively deny, or at least mitigate, the existence of differences between human populations even if they do in fact exist. That is to say that although I would absolutely agree with this sentiment if it were the only alternative to full-blown fascism, the ‘mission creep’ in the war against ‘white racism’—this war without endgame and which seems amply willing to ‘crack a few eggs to make an omelete’—must be brought to a close as swiftly and gently as possible. Not only is it grossly unfair to white people, and therefore divisive, but there are compelling universalist moral arguments to be made that it is a war that cannot be won and which needlessly fans the flames of long-term human suffering for all peoples. (In short: Our culture encourages the wrong people to reproduce. This is unsustainable, and creates the preconditions for human misery.)
Even if our goal is to create paradise on earth any way we can for all humanity—and it should be—we cannot do so by ignoring reality, just as we cannot land on the moon with bad physics. Simply stated, a ‘fake it till we make it’ strategy in the hopes of all humanity hybridizing into a monolithic race is doomed to fail. We will always stratify socioeconomically — and genetically — by dint of assortive mating and the human tendency to perceive the differentiation of all things into a bell curve. I do not mean to sound pessimistic. Quite to the contrary, by aspiring to a better approximate understanding of physical reality, we become better equipped for realizing our vision of a better, more equal and harmonious world.
Despite my unequivocal belief that the society-wide rigid adherence to the dogma of racial sameness would be, even if false, a moral imperative if it were the only thing keeping us from full-blown fascism, I strongly believe the reality is far less stark, and that the real danger would be to continue on our current unsustainable collision course. Although society does indeed face a very real risk of backsliding into fascism and racial supremacism—and I say this as one highly sensitive to the modal nature of mass psychology and our human tendency to define ourselves by negation and see the world in terms of binary oppositions—I nevertheless reject the idea that to assume a decidedly agnostic posture on whether ‘race’ correlates with stubbornly-inalterable native intelligence is incompatible with the goals and values we share in common. Simply stated, all public policy must be informed from an agnostic perspective regarding human differences, and individuals must be permitted to think what they want about race and decide for themselves whether we are all different or all the same. There has been ample time for reconciliations—as much reconciliation as there ever will be—and the hitherto impermeable color lines have blurred. The war on racism must end. I say this as a proponent of multiculturalism who sees colorblind cooperation as an historical inevitability. As Bob Dylan once sang, “The loser now will be later to win.” In 2017, it is the hegemonic antiracist morality that has become the bane of mankind.
Though the risk of moral backsliding warrants serious caution, I would argue that we would be risking far more by continuing as we have been regarding ‘race’. The real danger is not of backsliding into fascism, but to continue on our current collision course by escalating the war on ‘white racism’. Not only is such a war palpably unsustainable, it is also self-defeating in its divisiveness, its willful divorce from the reality we must contend with, and it risks forfeiting the moral high ground, sacrificing all that we have worked towards as a species—as epitomized by the Open Society Policy Center—at the altar of our own self-satisfiction as the status quo continues to slip out from under us. Make no mistake: We are at a tipping point, and catastrophe must be averted. The war on ‘white racism’ and ‘white privilege’ must end. It is a war without endgame, and unless mutual understanding is found, the war will be lost altogether.
I am not saying that human populations should be treated differently as a response to an awareness of approximate differences between them. I am not saying that whites—or any other group—should occupy a superior political strata, nor am I saying that the territorial integrity of nations should be abandoned to make way for a white ethnostate. To the contrary, I am saying that we should not treat peoples differently based on highly dubious presumptions of sameness, especially one which also implies a presumption of collective white guilt. As the famous cliche goes, the only way to end racial discrimination is to end racial discrimination. In essence, I am arguing for equality, mutual understanding, and a science-based approach to improving the welfare of all.
I believe that the drive for absolute racial equality we have witnessed in the past decades has been an absolutely necessary epoch in human history. However, such a reckoning based on half-truths will be doomed to deliver diminishing returns. When it comes to questions of the essential sameness or inherent differentness between human races, reality is far more nuanced than we would hope. The cup is neither half empty nor half full, but both half-empty and half full. All peoples should be given equal status as humans, and none should be scapegoated for the shortcomings of others.
What I am suggesting is that the UN Declarations on Race and Racial Prejudice must be updated to account for even just the possibility that all mankind is not the same, interchangeable blank slate, and even just the possibility that efforts to socially engineer mankind into a monolithic, homogeneous race are doomed to fail. This can, and absolutely should, be done in the spirit of the original post-war zeal for human unity. We must build a skyscraper that can sway in the wind, not a Tower of Babel that will soon come crashing down.
Responsa and Addendums:
These seem like very good questions, and I will do my best to answer them without reciting my typical script to those plugged into the antiracist paradigm.
Firstly, I go to great pains to emphasize to the reader that [I think] there is an iceberg because this is necessary groundwork to be laid prior to any effort on my part to explaining what that iceberg is. After all, what I’m getting at conflicts with the mainstream antiracist narrative. If you know anything about human cognition, you’ll be aware that human experiential reality is drenched in cognitive biases. Thus, I am making a preliminary wager in an effort to open people up to the thought that a lot is at stake if we are mistaken if we do not revisit longstanding assumptions. Sadly, I have to spend more time addressing this problem than actually making my full case.
One iceberg, the obvious one, is the so-called ‘whitelash’–white people who are fed up with being scapegoated. I don’t know much about you–maybe you’re insulated from this by becoming complicit in the unending antiracist witch hunt or by being exceptionally good-looking or by coming from a certain milieu that really is privileged. However, if you’re not a POC, and you’re a blue-blood, and you’re not willing to become an ethnomasochistic participant in on the witch hunt–then the war on antiracism is implicitly a war against you. This is true for millions of Americans and Europeans who are literally and explicitly discriminated against institutionally. This is plain to see, and the direction this is going seems pretty ominous to me. For a long time, I was adamantly of the opinion that war is obsolete, and there will never be some violent resolution to this cold race war. However, hearing so many the voices of well-respected public figures trying to de-legitimize the Trump election, all this Pizzagate shit, and contradictory tropes in the media has, to be totally honest, been making me extremely paranoid about what’s coming next. It’s like seeing your parents screaming at each other, and then wondering if maybe they’ll get a divorce–maybe they really will get a divorce. This rift is coming mostly in step with ever-the-more-dystopic, ever-intensifying measures to crack the whip on ‘white racism’ because the fruits of the ‘races are the same, culture and equal access are the only cause of racial disparities’ are still nowhere to be seen. Lines in the sand will be drawn. If the powder keg does explode, then the next day the whole world will be utterly shocked that everybody was in denial about what was going to happen.
Who knows. Maybe I’ve been spending too much time in the alt-right world. While this is what inspired me to write ‘Legitimate Grievances’, it is a mostly ad hoc component of my critique of antiracism.
The other iceberg is a bit more elusive, and hinges on what I have gotten to calling the ‘universalist moral argument for dumping antiracist dogma’. Basically, the argument hinges on the idea that there is an evolutionary horizon. Yes, I know that this may seem like fatalist, teleological thinking, but you could lodge the same complaint on the act of finding the limit of a function in Precalc–you observe current trends, see which traits have consistently incurred fitness bonuses throughout human evolutionary history, and you begin to see a horizon. My point is that any deviation from the most efficient trajectory toward this horizon implies that unnecessary human suffering will take place.
I don’t mean to suggest that adaptive genes are vanishing en masse from the genepool, or that maladaptive genes are proliferating like flies. That would be an outlandish claim. However, there is still a big ol’ grain of truth to this notion. What I am suggesting is that the employment and lifestyle demands of the hyper-technological 21st century are fast outstripping the cognitive means of many people. Think of all the people–often black–who work government-subsidized jobs, or else menial jobs and so on. What is the long term outcome of that? Are we going to put them in terrariums, or plug them into video game consoles? Or can we give them all careers as athletes or entertainers? This strikes me as unsustainable. People can only be marginalized so far before they’re pushed off the table, or else society itself begins sputtering.
“Certainly if it is true that there are genetic differences between the races it’s unfair that people are effectively ostracized from society for pointing this out, but this seems like such a minor injustice to me when compared to the discrimination and poverty racial minorities are dealt in America.”
This goes, far, far beyond ostracizing public racists, although that’s a huge discussion in and of itself. I’ve seen people’s lives destroyed, driven into poverty and madness due to this. The political censorship on social media these days is just the tip of the iceberg. In 2017, institutional anti-white has become normalized, as well as a smorgasbord of other double standards, all of which is predicated on what was once a ‘white lie’ but which has since matured into 1984-grade dogma. Again, I should remind you that how sensitive you are to these double standards depends heavily on your positioning in society. Not only do whites have to walk on eggshells, they also are explicitly disadvantaged in education and employment through explicit racial quotas. Though I don’t normally touch the ‘color of crime’ discussion, it is pretty staggering as well, especially when you think about how it is so slickly covered up or obfuscated. This has all become normalized or else brushed under the rug by 2017. There is also a plethora of double standards regarding acceptable etiquette. There are many things that you are not allowed to do if you’re white. Diversity has become a euphemism for ‘anybody but white males’. If you are white, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you don’t like rap music, you’re a bigot. If you do like rap music, then you’re culturally appropriating. If you leave black neighborhoods, it’s ‘white flight’, but if you go to them then it’s ‘gentrification’.
Of course, these things might all be invisible to you if you benefit from not seeing them. It’s probably proportional to how much you benefit from them. Let me tell you, however, all of the people who do see them do not benefit from seeing them.
The difference between the injustices suffered by whites under antiracism and the injustices suffered by blacks in the midst of white culture is that the former is a form of institutionally sanctioned collective punishment based on untruths while the latter is qualitatively the same as the disadvantages a short person might have in life. White private citizens don’t discriminate against blacks because such white private citizens are meanies–they do so for the same reason you might discriminate against somebody who is ugly or who has a chipped tooth or is short–because perceptible correlations do exist.
If you want to bear an extra burden on behalf of, say, black people, you should be welcome to do so. But it should not be heedlessly foisted upon millions upon millions of innocents.
At the end of the day, antiracism is based on what some might you might variably call errors, untruths, or lies. Even if you want an egalitarian paradise, you will fall short of your expectations if you’re using bad science.
When I first saw that you sent me this email, I immediately wrote this as a response even before reading it:
I discuss some more relevant stuff in response to an article in The Atlantic here:
My discussion about the moral imperative of ending antiracism can be found in expanded form here:
However, it may be difficult to follow because it is directed at HBD, race-realist audiences. Remember, if somebody is plugged into the mainstream antiracist paradigm, then they are constructing their reality based on very different auxiliary assumptions about reality than is somebody who is skeptical of the mainstream antiracist paradigm and who is not benefiting from it.
My buddy has a pretty good article about “diversity” in the arts here:
I’m not so sure you know what segregation was like under Jim Crow versus what I’m proposing. Under our current morality, if a place has too many white people, this is deemed to be a bad thing. If white people were to try to start–legally–an explicitly white community in the US, they would be harassed into vacating by activists acting with impunity. Also look at HUD affirmative action schemes–efforts at social engineering.
All people need to have the freedom to associate and disassociate.
To see the utter madness of the mainstream disposition, swap the words ‘black’ and ‘white’ everywhere they appear in this entire topic.
Throughout all human history, people have been extremely vulnerable to mass delusion and fanaticism. The is no different. History will not look back affectionately at this current epoch. Perhaps it will to the innocent beginnings of antiracism, but not as it has existed during my life or your life. In fact, I would argue that the later it ends, the harsher the reaction will be. That’s another reason to end it.
I’m flattered that you’ve taken so much time to read/reply to my novel and my blog. The role I feel I’ve been born into is the facilitation of dialogue, as frustrating and vexing as that may be to cross the gap between paradigms.
Thomas Sowell once famously remarked “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” Granted, this same adage could be swung the other way by antiracists–but still.
Yeah, so my shtick is, as I like to put it “race ought not be a privileged category”. Structures of bias should either form naturally, or we should literally try to end ALL discrimination, such as through the bagism proposed by John Lennon. TBH, I’m down for either solution–we just must be consistent.
Yes, it’s extremely difficult not to “reality tunnel” as you put it. That’s why I try to emphasize that whites do discriminate–but that this is largely a faculty of inductive logic, social modalities, et c. It is /most likely/ a reflection, however approximate, of an underlying reality.
Yeah, hence why I want to make an activism platform called “LegitimateGrievances.org” that would have the half-full, half-empty glass as its (heavily symbolic) logo. Even if a lot of the alt-right grievances are trash, there are still some extremely legitimate ones.
“So ‘how bad’ the anti-white identity politics discourse is seems to me to be a very subjective question and hard, if not impossible to pin down empirically.”
I would contend that, minus the heaps of cognitive dissonance heaped on top of it, it’s an open secret that it’s pretty bad. We’re literally swimming in it.
Yeah, I mean, the world still keeps on turning. I think the war on white racism is an “as much as the system can bear” sort of thing. At the same time, however, what is the gold standard for fucked up injustice? I don’t intend to mitigate the past injustice of human history, but is it not possible that the historical record only remembers the extrema? I was thinking about this in Ireland, where I was told that the English used to cut off the tongues of anybody they caught speaking Irish. I wouldn’t dispute that this happened, but I would be very hesitant to believe that this happened as the rule.
That said, there’s been a whole lot of blind eyes turned to a whole lot of really fucked up shit during this antiracist era. I know this from copious first- and second-hand experience. Dylan Roof’s anger didn’t come from ‘losing his white privilege’.
I am mostly indifferent toward feminism, though only up until the point where it begins to adversely affect reproductive ecology. After my belief that society needs to be agnostic on questions of race and human behavior, I believe we need a universal reproductive ethic that encourages replacement rates of reproduction across the whole world, no more and no less.
Yeah, word choice is extremely delicate “White people are oppressed” sounds too brash, and the immediate responses is “But blacks make 20% less money than whites This is why I often try to concede that blacks have it rough, et c.
Nevertheless, perhaps “whites are oppressed” and “men’s rights” just sound dumb because you’re conditioned to scoff at it? (Not to say that I shouldn’t tactically avoid over-using these tropes.)
“With congress over 80% white and over 85% whites on the boards of fortune 500 companies, it doesn’t seem as if white people are at the risk of losing the actual reins of power in society. ”
I disagree with this. You have to remember that a large proportion of the whites in congress are aligned with politics that are implicitly anti-white. It doesn’t matter who has the reins, what matters is where he’s steering the wagon.
Regarding ‘segregation’: The thing is that, even if there is still lots of incidental, de facto segregation, this is another thing that’s on the chopping block of the dystopic spiral of antiracism. Lots of scarrily ‘legitimate’ voices might look at that map of St. Louis and say “This is morally reprehensible and must be fixed!” As I understand it, there are already lots of public housing projects under HUD which actively, deliberately relocate blacks into heavily white areas. In my mind, this is equal-and-opposite to the government enforcing segregation.
I’m not saying that whites should be able to declare their communities to be “whites only!” and then vote all non-whites out or whatever. I mean that the enforcement of any such laws should be colorblind and there should be no weird efforts at social engineering for the sake of ‘diversity’. However it works for the Amish, it should also work for normal whites.
Diversity is not an intrinsic good. Sure, in university it incurs some benefits to students because it prepares them for a diverse outside world. However, this is the extent of it in my view. It also incurs various disadvantages that have been measure and discussed even in mainstream research.
Basically, I’d say that some aspects of our culture are literally dysgenic (even if other aspects are wildly eugenic). Under the antiracist morality, it might be considered morally superior to not reproduce and instead adopt black or mixed-race babies. Or, alternatively, you’ll have scenarios where some ‘high time preference’ (look it up, r/K theory) black dude who has one kid with a white chick, then moves on to have four more kids with black women. Then some “cuck” white dude will come and help raise the white woman’s half-black kid. I don’t mean to use such loaded examples and, sure, this is not /totally/ the norm per se… but this pattern does bear some semblance of truth.
Basically, I see antiracism’s cultural efforts to basically turn back the clock on mate preference as basically dysgenic. It rewards anti-social traits, ones which not only are non-conducive to social harmony, but I imagine correlate with a host of other negative attributes.
My idea of the evolutionary horizon is a little bit loosey-goosey, to be totally honest. While I would be hesitant to claim there to exist some rigid racial hierarchy, and I concede that there’s no ‘telos’ of evolution, I nevertheless can’t help but see that the degree to which human individuals cooperate with each other will only increase the longer a genepool is subject to the evolutionary pressures that are distinctly societal in nature. To survive and pass on one’s genes, one has to be able to happily make his or herself useful to others; one has to be able to sublimate dogmas; one has to recognize the primacy of cooperation over cheating as the most reliable long term strategy for survival; one has to be able to sublimate his or her ego into the ego of society at large rather than to only look after his or her own self. I suspect that this to a certain extent explains certain differences in human populations. Basically, I think the end product of human evolution is something like the Borg in Star Trek.
That said, this evolutionary horizon of mine is not, I would contend, nearly as loosey-goosey as the Stephen Jay Gould idea of “punctuated equilibrium”–that the purported dawn of mankind was a sudden evolutionary event, and that humans have ‘hardly evolved’ ever since. This is about as loosey-goosey as it gets. Culture = evolutionary pressures, and even if culture emerged asymmetrically in the world, then this very asymmetry would still affect genetics. Regarding my ‘evolutionary horizon’, I am simply looking at the world around me, observing evolutionary pressures that have been consistently valued in human civilization, and extrapolating where these pressures will take us–at least those of us who always remain members of the mainstream society.
“It seems like many people, both on the left and the right, have this idea that blank-slate denial (not just in the case of race but in general) is incompatible with liberal democracy. Well, personally I know that the blank slate is false and also that liberal democracy is by far the best form of government, so there must be some way to meaningfully reconcile the two and I am drawn to anyone who is actively working to do so.”
This is why I specifically use the term ‘antiracism’ to the exclusion of terms like ‘degeneracy’ (whatever that means) or cultural Marxism. The basic idea of the form of humanism that grew out of WWII was “Every human has an unmitigatable intrinsic value, and our technologically-advanced, modern society will make room at the table–find jobs for them, if you will–no matter what.
As I see it, this is part of the reason why Western culture has become so hedonistic–to basically ‘stoop down’ to those who–identifiable sadly by skin color–have serious trouble at excelling at much other than feeding their egos, having a high time preference for pleasure, cheating in order to make temporary gains in life–et c. I see this as, in some ways at least, something that will end in a wake-up call when the economic viability of the West becomes painfully dependent on top-level industries like entertainment, et c. I don’t mean to say there’ll be some sort of year-zero economic collapse, but that, you know, ‘all is not well’.
“It seems to me like right now in the alt-right you have this mass movement of kids who start out watching YouTube videos about how “feminists don’t believe in logic” or whatever it is, grow skeptical of the identity politics paradigm (as they should), becoming more right-wing, etc. and then a few months later end up becoming full-fledged neo-Nazis, which one would think is the last thing one would ever want to become. How to stop this?”
This is basically what I’m trying to apply myself to. Maybe you’ve seen it, but my “Rules for Racists” was a short activist manifesto I was passing out at the NPI conference.
“It doesn’t really seem to me like telling people (not talking about you right now, but some hypothetical powerful cultural institution) that it’s now, contra 60-odd years of moralizing, okay to be racist is exactly a good way to stop the “whitelash”, it seems like it would only fuel it.”
That’s a fair point. I think Richard Feynman once said “Scientific progress only happens one death at a time.” That said, all the 60s radicals are senile, dead, or dying. The new stewards of antiracism are all the original radicals literal or ideological children. They’re mostly shrewd careerists born into privilege to be quite honest. Not that I don’t have self-serving interests in wanting to tear down antiracism. I’m basically gambling with history.
The only way the alt-right neofascists can be defeated is by defeating antiracism on their behalf.
“The current liberal-discourse strategy of publicizing them for the purpose of mocking and scorning them is terrible and only fueling them.”
Agreed. I think it’s becoming apparent already that the hegemonic antiracist world order is at serious risk of falling apart. The influential elite are clueless about how to deal the alt-right while still pressing on with their war-without-end-game on ‘white racism’. No matter what, they’re going to be fueling the fire.
It’s lose-lose about how the mainstream narrative can report on the alt-right. If they were to treat the alt-right even less fairly than they already do, that would only drive the wedge further. By giving them a voice, they only legitimize them. However, don’t get me wrong, there are many legitimate grievances being voiced from the alt-right. Just not all of it.
The only way to defeat the alt-right will be to have its legitimate grievances addressed. (Such as this: https://www.change.org/p/trump-establish-a-federal-commission-to-enforce-scotus-rulings-on-affirmative-action)
“Another example that always frustrated me is how people will endlessly ruminate over the origins of anti-black bigotry without acknowledging the obvious primary cause. Black people suffer from being caricatured as dumb and violent, and of course we know that it is in fact the reality that blacks have substantially lower IQ scores on average than whites, and commit a high proportion of crimes. So, as you obviously know, no matter what the cause of this disparity is, people are going to generalize to an extent and exacerbate it, etc. This is a purely logical argument and I have absolutely no idea how someone would deny it, and yet to voice it is almost unthinkable. ”
Yeah, man, it’s literally an open secret.
If you snatched up a bunch of Chinese, had them pick cotton for 300 years, I bet you they’d come out mostly the same. In fact, I don’t think the Chinese ever would have been enslaved in quite the same way. It simply would have not been necessary to economically engage them through whip and chain; this is where the ‘paternalism’ component of economically mobilizing Africans comes into play. (I think I talked about this in my previous mail.)
“in which a person is reluctant to acknowledge race in a physical description even when there’s no reason it would be seen as a negative”
On top of that, there’s this recent SJW trope about how it’s racist to /not/ acknowledge a POC’s race. Basically, it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, just like how white person who only listens to white music is racist, but a white person who only listens to black music is reappropriating. Basically, the problem isn’t racism–the problem is being white. As cheesy as the whole “White Genocide” thing is, it is at it’s essence basically true. To even question that declining white demographics is a good thing would be counted as a serious breach of PC in most polite circles in the US.
“I think that given that these taboos are so ubiquitous they are probably in the best interest of society”
Possibly so, but still questionable.
“I don’t think a society in which people are going around quoting crime statistics or whatever would be a pleasant one.”
Yeah, it’s all a big, slippery slope. But under antiracism, the crime statistics /are/ quoted, only they’re extremely selectively quoted as a pretext to further escalate the war on white people.
“the social code might not need to change very much to reflect this, (and shouldn’t).
Agreed. There are no longer any sharp walls preventing entryism into all aspects of life in the US.
“Those who are intellectually inclined are the most likely in our current society to be anti-rational and taboo-enforcing when it comes to these subjects. (And not only that, but the intellectual climate is full of bad actors who play elaborate moralizing games with the subject, etc. etc.) ”
Agreed. Intelligence has nothing to do with being able to conjure up true statements about reality. It is all applied toward the challenge of winning the game. And in recent human evolution (relatively speaking), this has boiled down to fitting in and making oneself useful.
I almost wonder if intelligent people–those with a capacity to cognitively engage abstract knowledge systems–naturally collude, however subconsciously, to concoct literally-false belief systems in ways that cause the less intelligent to stumble and be penalized for seeing ‘the naked emperor’.
I wrote an interesting blog article about my thoughts on the ruling class. Although I mostly hate them, I see that a functional definition of their role in society is to allocate resources. (quite literally, this is what investment banking is). Basically, capital boils down not to gold, but to social capital. After all, what constitutes “money” in society is defined by consensus. Thus, the ruling class must make themselves maximally likeable by the population. This explains why there exists subsidies like affirmative action–to keep potentially unruly people in check. It is on these same grounds that the ruling class can, through enough cajoling or finessing or the implicit threat of mass insurrection, be induced to hear the legitimate grievances.
Also, the hegemonic antiracist morality is directly responsible for the emergence of the alt-right. In fact, it needs the alt-right. Because the antiracist experiment has consistently failed, they have needed to “look for” and “correct” the problems purported to be postponing the post-racial utopia. This is why we have the witch hunts, the efforts at doctoring reality in the media, egregiously asymmetrical enforcement of civil rights law. I don’t know what it’s like at your university, but Rutgers was a dystopic nightmare.
Antiracism, in a certain sense, has gone down the bad trip that Islam did. “The ends justify the means”. The whole point of Islam is that an everlasting peace on Earth will be achieved–but only after the whole world converts to Islam. Antiracism, meanwhile, promises a post-racial utopia–but only after we eradicate all of the implicit bias that lurks in every white male’s heart. What this basically amounts to is to terrorize all white men unless they are either gay or actively complicit in the persecution of other straight white men.
The fact is, for antiracism to take more extreme measures to “correct the root of the problem” (pervasive “implicit bias” among white people) they /need/ a monster, real or imagined, its crimes.
Basically, the entire goal of our generation should be to gently amend, update this document:
Also, for a good read on why racial disparities are not necessarily caused by implicit bias, I refer you to this excellent article:
A few other relevant entries of mine: