New in the weblog
The Future of Racism… For a long time now I've wanted to write about two related subjects: the failure of HBD/race-realism as an intellectual movement, and the function of race and racism in human society.
Now I've written it. This is something I hope everyone in the conservative-race-realist-HBD-alt right "sphere" reads and seriously considers, so I'd like those who find it interesting to help spread it.
I will introduce it by presenting the conclusion:
The correct view of race is as a spectrum of human differences created by selection pressures and inbreeding. Race therefore isn't a constant, but it has a certain staying power in that it takes many generations of population change to alter racial characteristics.
Culture echoes race, gifting it with a kind of personality which equates to a stereotype ("averaging" the behavior of a group). This use of race as group stereotype is very close to the traditional meaning of the word race, as in "the Scotch-Irish race", "the Slavic race", and so on, in which the word race captures both inbreeding and cultural expression--appearance, manners, temperament, proclivity.
While stereotypes are invariably seen as negative simplifications, the truth is stereotypes are an indispensible part of our thinking, and we hold stereotypes about ourselves as much as about others, both as individuals--being part of a stereotype--and as groups. The negative connotation of stereotyping developed in reaction to group conflict, but stereotypes are often positive. Stereotypes about ourselves and others help us to bond together in groups; the stronger the bond the less costly group formation is (fewer mechanisms are needed to maintain cooperation and suppress cheating).
Nature helps us cooperate by giving us kin preference (in which physical similarity is consequential), without which we would be at best opportunistic foragers hanging together in small, easily dispersed groups. Kin preference combines with stereotyping to allow us to form strong, secure communities and nations.
But groups do not all appear to have the same capacity for organizational complexity. It can be argued whether this is genetic or cultural (i.e. "legacy of the past") or both--but since it doesn't appear feasible to deliberately shape culture, it's an argument that is beside the point. To the extent that a group has a higher capacity than it appears to have, it's not clear why this should not be observed within a few generations of contact.
When groups with different capacities for organizational complexity share a space, the result is usually that the higher complexity group becomes dominant over the lower complexity group. This relationship can change, and even reverse, assuming the lower complexity group has the capacity to achieve a higher level of complexity, but this is not always the case. IQ, and possibly other cognitive/emotional factors, appear to place a limit on organizational complexity. This is discussed further in The Limits of Human Scale.
With the advent of harm-based morality, the mechanics of group solidarity came under attack due to an obsession with dominant vs. subordinate group interaction. This moralizing targeted dominant group solidarity specifically, because of its tendency to harm the subordinate group (harm should be seen in the context of all group interaction, but this tends not to be the case). Weakened group solidarity, in combination with the formation of mass society, has dramatically increased the costs of organizational complexity, and calls into question our ability to sustain society in present form.
The evidence is all around us: greater surveillance, erosion of fourth amendement protections, historically high levels of criminal incarceration, decline in social relationships and levels of trust, militarization of police, criminalization of speech, etc. These are the costs we have been burdened with as group solidarity has come under attack.
This is the result of the war on racism. Like many famous "wars" on abstract concepts, it has mainly produced more of what it is attempting to eliminate. This is not to deny that real social problems provided its impetus--rather that the war is an ineffective remedy for a misdiagnosed problem. The true remedy lies in recognition of how group cohesion develops, what its needs are, and its very large role in reducing the costs of organizational complexity.
More at My Posting Career.
The Essence of Intimacy… Steve Sailer sometimes writes about the Undernews, which I guess you learn about by fucking around on Google all day. But I do not recall him writing much about "darky enlightenment", which is that feel when you read what black people talk about to each other, such as in black-targeted magazines, radio programs, and barbershops that sell crack. I'm not much one for flipping through copies of Ebony or Essence at a magazine stand, in fact I still have strong suspicions that these publications are part of a Skull and Bones prank on the rest of the country. Sniggering rich preppies methodically constructing in mind-blowing detail the childish preoccupations and low rent celebrity tabloidism that black people would indulge in if they could read (you know they got a huge laugh out of Michelle Obama's thesis).
More at My Posting Career.
|rss feed||atom feed|