An Economic Perspective on the Abolition of Antiracism

I had the idea to write this while I was in the bath tub just a few minutes ago. I was mulling over this article, and thinking about the ruling class. More particularly, I was thinking about how I had been telling my girlfriend(?) the day before about this short story by a female South American social writer (forget her name) that I read a few months back, which basically argued that, no matter how kind/polite a rich person is to a poor person, it is only because the poor person exists to the rich person as an accessory, like a stick of furniture or a robot. I was inspired to make this recollection because my girlfriend’s family is probably worth 100+ million USD, and I was assessing the way they comport themselves with the ‘salt of the earth’. At the time, I thought I was a mostly impartial observer; I have since realized that I am also a victim of this dynamic, perhaps especially in relation to her. The thing I hate so much about the rich is how adept they are at making themselves likable.

Anyway, I am something of a fixture in a certain corner of the alt-right (as defined as strictly, however generally, as possible) for preaching for them to abandon their racial egoism and to, instead, begin espousing universalist moral arguments for abolishing the singular bane of our era–the war on racism, including all public policies, be they institutional or cultural, that that predicated on the dogma of racial sameness.

Many on the alt-right deride me for this, claiming that the ruling class consists of antisocial calculators who are, at best, simply doling out antiracist dogma and the socioeconomic subsidies it affords to POCs in order to stay in power. They therefore think that any appeal to empathy and loose utilitarianism are doomed to fall on deaf ears.

My response is that, even if those whose livelihood and life meaning are derived solely from waging the war on ‘white racism’ might never be swayed by any universalist moral argument for ending the ‘war on racism’, there might still be the rational colorblind altruists in their midst–or, at least, those with less to lose–who might be swayed. Then, if there were to be greater pushback from the hardcore antiracists of the ruling class, we would at least have much greater social capital on our side.

Moreover, the rhetoric power of universalist moral considerations cannot be understated. Wars and confrontations, it could be said, are determined by who seizes the moral high ground. I believe that by 2017, we have seen the antiracist elite basically forfeit their moral high ground.

This response of mine, however, is still thinking in painfully economic terms. After all, all wealth is consensual–social capital is and indebtedness to others is, broadly speaking, the fundamental unit of wealth. Dollars or bitcoins or gold are merely convenient proxies.

Though things like racial affirmative action, and numerous other double standards, do indeed exist as subsidies given by the ruling class to keep them in power, this way of thinking ignores the finer structure of the arrangement. It is not as simple as POCs (the “lower class”) being the ruling class’s henchmen to shove whitie’s face (the “middle class”) in the mud, as many alt-righters believe.

In order to stay in power, the ruling class must tirelessly optimize resource allocation such that economic capacity of society at large is maximized, yielding maximum benefit for all, or at least to whichever demographics pose the greatest threat to the loose societal consensus on the ruling class’s continued status as such. This can be thought of as either them distributing resources a) equally regardless of the economic value generated by each recipient, b) to those most fit to extract the most value for society at large, perhaps determined by market forces with the idea that the greater good will ‘trickle down’ and therefore maximize the pacification of the masses, or c) with the aim of basically ‘paying off’ the demographics most likely to challenge their hegemony.

After all, to repeat myself, the wealthy ruling class exist as such because there is an implicit referendum, every day, that they shall be for us a wealthy ruling class who serve as the arbiters of wealth allocation for the rest of us.

(I mostly agree with item ‘b’–that resource allocation must be optimized according to who can extract the most value to be shared most equitably with all mankind. They need not be rewarded with absolute rights over the spoils, but will nevertheless enjoy the esteem of mankind for how useful they have made themselves. At the same time, however, don’t mistaken me for saying that we should be uncritical of the ruling class; a free market is an imperfect means by which the ruling class is appointed–indeed, many of them have amassed wealth and/or influence without adding value or correctly allocating resources to the rest of us; we should absolutely rein in on their neglect of the status quo, their abuses and their excesses.)

What I’m saying is that political epochs can be thought of corrections to this resource allocation, with resources here can be thought of not only as material resources, but also psychosocial positioning, esteem and privileged sexual status. The ruling class are essentially the brokers of wealth to this end.

Anyway, I guess my point is that alt-righters are vastly unable to grasp the idea that the elite are not flatly anti-white. This is due to their simplistic theory of mind (which operates under a socioeconomic ceiling and within racial bounds) as well as their simplistic ways of looking at history.

I think that, on these grounds, the ruling class will increasingly be opening their ears to the saner voices on the alt-right–perhaps they will be called the alt-left. I believe that a critical majority of mankind is heavily influenced by the concept of justice, as guided by the “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” wisdom. We can sweeten the idea of abolishing the war on racism by, for example, pursuing universal free higher education.

I agree mostly with this guy on Reddit/r/altleft, though believe that any technocratic policy-making must be colorblind, and explicitly non-interventionist. Rather, we must use our awareness of human biodiversity in order to refrain from presupposing sameness, not as a pretext for the differential distribution of resources.

This is why I, as somebody who sees the dogma which inspires the war on racism as the great evil of our era, and who wants nothing more than to end it, am actively thinking in terms of how to keep (most of) the ruling class in power.

On a side note, I would also like to chime in about another reason why the intelligent, educated whites are often so oblivious to the falsity of the theory of racial sameness–such people are often, even if not part of the ruling class, wealthy enough to be socioeconomically insulated from the aspects of antiracism that are either implicitly or explicitly antagonistic to them as white people.


The guy on Reddit, Tafari_X, replied to my “Great post, man!” message spouting typical antiracist rhetoric about how nature is absolutely non-egalitarian–except between human races–and that any genetically-rooted disparities could be rectified through CRISPR gene editing.

Here is my reply:

You write a long post proclaiming the inequality of man, and then you try to distance yourself from me by saying that inequality exists everywhere–except between races? Give me a break.

Race ought not be a privileged category. Variation exists along this dimension just as it does along any other. Similarly, injustices between races should not be taken to be any more, or less, egregious than are injustices that exist between any other human categories.

It should be implicit that I’m not using ‘race’ to mean stable, discrete entities. I’m talking about relative variations in gene frequencies between fuzzy sets. If you don’t want to use the word ‘race’, then I’m happy to waste both our times writing ‘human populations’ instead. We could draw the bounds of a ‘human population’ however we like, but it would be most expedient to do so in line with how people self-identify colloquially.

Moreover, I’m only proposing that the differences between races be highlighted inasmuch as it is necessary to achieve equal civil rights for whites in the US and reduce resentment and division between human populations in a way which is, unlike our current situation, actually sustainable. In blunt terms, I’m advocating a colorblind society wherein protection of the law is applied to all citizens as equally as possible. If you want to go around presupposing that disparate life outcomes between different human population is caused by cultural factors, such as systemic white racism, be my guest. My only demand is that you do the same for disparities between the short and tall, beautiful and ugly–et cetera.

Over long enough periods of time, genetics and culture cannot be cleanly separated. Didn’t you write in your post that you are against the scapegoating of white people?

As far as top-down CRISPR gene editing to make everybody equal, there are several serious problems with this:

a) What if the frequencies of those genes determined to be ‘adaptively optimal’ are found to vary substantially between different human populations? This would force us to either push our cognitive dissonance to new heights, or admit that there are differences in trait frequencies between different human populations. Moreover, what if these adaptively optimal traits happened to immutably linked to cranial and facial structure? After all, unless you accept some extremely retrograde Cartesian dualist perspective, one’s conscious palette is, if not a an isomorphism of the brain’s geometry, nevertheless causally entangled with the brain as its physical substrate.

b) How would we decide what constitutes an ‘adaptively optimal’ genetic trait? What is the gold standard? Not only is this a dire bootstrapping problem, it is just as loaded as the discussion of racial differences. Who gets to decide what these optimal traits are?

c) To roll out such a ‘Great Equalizer’ program would require a massive top-down program of social/genetic engineering. It would require VAST cooperation which would only ever be possible by totalitarianism. In many ways, what you’re suggesting is basically the same as (almost hate to say it) Nazi eugenics, except instead of selective breeding you think that some Orwellian

d) We must play our position. We don’t know if such technologies would ever be possible–or desirable–on any mass scale. Thus, we cannot let inequality run amok in the meantime by burrowing our heads like ostriches while insane double standards exist which are justified by pseudoscience like the ‘racial disparities are solely due to culture’ theory of racial sameness.

You exaggerate the blurring of racial boundaries. We’re not going to wake up and one day be in a world where everybody has the same tone of golden-brown skin. People will always discern behavioral traits as correlating to phenotype, and people will discriminate on these bases; people will always envision those around them as falling on some bell curve, with one extreme being ‘desirable’ and the other extreme being ‘undesirable’. Assortive mating will always exaggerate this effect Case in point: India’s spectrum of castes. This is arguably an immutable aspect of the human condition. At last, if we want to eradicate it, we are at serious risk of serious hubris.

If we want a ‘unified race of better humans’, all human populations must be exposed to the same evolutionary pressures. This is the only way convergent evolution will ever occur. As it currently stands, the double standards that exist in our society arguably causes divergent evolution.

I would also identify myself as a trans-humanist. For example, once we’re all using augmented reality on our optic nerve computers, we can see each other all as the same beautiful face, differentiable only by the little blinking three-digit reputation/attribute scores. Wait a second, that would just evolve into a new think to discriminate based on.

If we want a unified human race, the first step is equal civil rights and equal protection of the law for all peoples. Right now, whites don’t have this. Rather than dreaming up (what will, if it ever actually happens, will be grotesquely dystopic) positive and negative eugenics schemes, we should in the meantime establish the necessary behavioral-ecological conditions for passive eugenics by refraining from rewarding maladaptive traits due to their very maladaptivenes as our current antiracist culture does.

As you were saying in your post about the dude who came at you for talking about human variation (but not between human populations??), we must be intellectually honest if we are to optimize our human social predicament. You can’t land a rocket on the moon with bad science.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s