Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!
As per the Internet Bill of Rights, you have access to most of the forums here, but MPC is a BLM-designated white privilege zone and you must become white to have a voice. Once you respond to the registration email, someone--no one knows who--must approve your new account. You will then become "white" and your privilege will be instantly assaulted.

* * * * * 3 votes

The Future of Racism


  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

#1 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:00 PM

I expect everyone will agree that the last major (and current) stage in the development of racism began in 1994 with the publication of The Bell Curve.  However in observing this we should note three coinciding social changes:

1) the spread of Internet use and the transformation to a computer-based society

2) the arrival at a demographic tipping point due to changing trends in birthrate, population movement, and multicultural advocacy

3) a further acceleration of social dysfunction as economic globalism, large scale cities, and wealth consolidation led to increased social anxiety

Each of these changes increased the receptive audience for The Bell Curve and/or that audience's ability to spread discussion of its main points.  Although The Bell Curve is mainly about "Intelligence and Class Structure", most discussion has centered on race differences, to which only one chapter was devoted.  This chapter, which popularized major social science findings on intelligence and race, effectively launched what one might call the Modern Age of Racism.

First in email lists and then in websites and blogs, The Bell Curve created an entire genre of Internet discussion, IQ samizdat, which sought to convince university-educated Americans of the scientific basis of race differences via statistics on crime, educational attainment, and social dysfunction.

A major rhetorical issue was whether believing in these race differences was in fact another form of racism.  This claim was contested by neo-racists because the word racism tended to connote mindless bigotry, vigilante hate groups, low-SES whites, and similar problematic identifications.  Thus, another marker for this period is the explanation, "I'm not a racist, I'm a race-realist," which meant to convey that one was not bound by visceral loathing of darkies but was rather convinced of group differences by a dispassionate view of the evidence.  An attempt (we can now see it was feeble) was made to reverse the stigma by referring to IQ denialism as "liberal creationism".  This didn't make much impact because a) liberals don't really seem like creationists, and b) their views were conventional, reinforced by social etiquette, and thus didn't sound as foolish to ordinary people as believing that dinosaurs are 10,000 years old.

But, to create a small sidebar, it was of course racism by the ordinary definition of the term.  The word racism is from the French racisme, used to describe Nazi theories, and became a replacement for older terms such as racialism--which means more or less what "race-realism" propounds:  "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities."  Whether the Nazi angle forced the pejorative flavor of racism, or whether it was an inevitable development of changes relating to mass society, race-realism was really no different from racism/racialism and amounted to a marketing distinction.

Another term connoting roughly the same set of views--that human beings diverge based on rough racial/ethnic categories, and some of them are more pleasant to be around than others--was popularized by Steve Sailer:  human biodiversity, or HBD, which basically means the study of group differences.

As sciencey as this sounds, a great deal of the HBD discussions on the Internet tended to have to do with what one might call "niggershines"--generally, pathological behavior engaged in by American blacks that was of growing concern due to periodic flashpoints, such as the attempt to burn down Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict.  Naturally, increased population diversity heightened anxieties about this kind of remote event happening again, as well as more mundane interactions such as being murdered, tortured, or raped (usually in reverse order).  HBD discussants were also fascinated by, and enamored of, Asian immigrants to the United States due to the latter's gentleness, reputed high intelligence, and the greater prospects for obtaining waifus.  Asians were regarded as a "model minority" and were a useful foil in debates about whether race-realists and HBDers were actually garden variety white supremacist racists.  Thus the term "NAM", meaning "non-Asian minority", was used as a way of deterring the uglier implications of being racist while employing the same basic categories and arguments as racists and racialists always had (it was also a jab at the media for conveniently leaving out Asians when discussing minority hardships).

During the period from 1994 to today this modern racism has mainly occupied itself with finding evidence that these racial categories are more or less valid, that the differences in racial groups are explicable as the natural results of geographic separation and survival pressure, and that the main problem, when you get right down to it, is that current population trends are dysgenic.  An advanced economy cannot afford to produce more stupid people than smart people, the HBDers argue, and yet current policies and trends do exactly that.

It is my argument that this period is drawing to a close, that the approach of race-realist/HBD racists has already obtained maximum effectiveness, and that changing social conditions merit a rethinking of their topic focus, policy prescriptions, and rhetorical posture.  I will make this argument in the next post.

#2 Shrill

Shrill

    MPC Gold Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1692 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 28 June 2013 - 06:17 PM

HBD, like libertarianism, has a very good set of answers to a very narrow set of questions. Race and intelligence are pretty clearly correlated, large, powerful governments really do tend to expand irrationally and without regard to consequences/incentives. But parallel problems unfold. High-G individuals may be, on average, more desirable than their low-G counterparts as neighbors, co-workers, co-citizens, etc, but certain tribes of them seem almost pathologically bent towards making traditional society impossible, and on the large-scale that's a bigger drag than a marginal aggregaten decrease on the IQ spectrum would be. Similarly, libertarian theory describes how high-conscientiousness whites can get along with very little government if their society is especially homogenous and coercive ...and then applies those theories to all of homo sapiens, so that hilarity ensues.

Both theories attract detail men who have evaluated the questions as put forward and found their answers realistic. The problem is that neither racial or economic reductionism are appealing to the masses, and for good reason; ordinary people are deeply epistemologically conservative, in the Burkean sense. They're hesitant to believe a) that the bulk of the experts are wrong (this is sad) and b) that world problems are solvable if only a university-bound theory of everything is applied to them (this is frustrating, but wonderful).

Murray's Bell Curve is good argument against increased immigration and affirmative action. We'd be better off it guided policy. But the sort of people who latch onto it aren't persuasive in the broader sphere, because they aren't balanced. They're a more erudite equivalent of people who just learned about the Austrian Business Cycle Theory last year.

#3 Olmos

Olmos

    Enigmatic Henchpoaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • How did you find MPC:Full-page ad in Samizdat Quarterly
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, grabbed pussy
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:33 PM

I'm interested to see where you're going with this, just the other day I happened to read John Derbyshire's speech at CPAC 2012 about "The Future of Elite Attitudes on Race":

http://www.vdare.com...titudes-on-race

He argues that elites may plausibly shift towards race realism in coming years, as attempts to cover up minority underperformance (despite countless gimmedats and preferences) have become increasingly desperate and shrill and may become both financially and psychologically untenable barring a descent into complete totalitarianism. This sounds starry-eyed on its face, but Derb points to other examples of entrenched elite opinion swinging wildly around, noting that as recently as 1986 SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger had this to say about a burning topic du jour "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching." (nor does elite opinion necessarily always move leftward, apparently the New York Times swung to become quite the hardline immigration restrictionists in the 1920's). He also cites the risk of a Balkanized America being economically surpassed by China, whose elites are unimpressed by blank slate BS, lack any sense of white guilt, and actually seem sympathetic to the academic study of racial differences. I'm not sure just how much of his argument is tongue-in-cheek, but it seems clear that something has to give sooner or later. Presumably there is some number of Mexicans immigrants that would persuade even Carlos Slim's New York Times editorial board that alright, enough with the damn Mexicans already. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll live to find out just what that number is.

#4 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 28 June 2013 - 10:54 PM

I will touch on some of this, but these kinds of predictions (or hopes) strike me as coming from a way of thinking that ignores the fundamentals.  I have yet to see conservatives grasp the underlying causes of urbanization, complexity, mass society, scale, or managerialism, or their secondary effects such as the emergence of a purely harm-based morality (which is related to Haidt's WEIRD society--Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic).  Therefore they tend to be blindly reactionary, like Derbyshire, or hopelessly lost in a sea of pre-modern conservative philosophy (Mencius Moldbug fits this type).

I have noticed that it is very difficult to pull either type of conservative from his outdated worldviews.  Part of it has to do with the human tendency to form moral teams; people on Team Conservative are inextricably drawn to seeing liberal-trending movements as part of an antagonistic, bad faith corruption of society, rather than as an outgrowth of deeper changes in human environments.  Part of it has to do with conservatism's reluctance to engage ideas outside traditional institutions.  There are bad faith arguments, but they aren't the main mover--they're a side effect of moral teams.

What is more likely than the New York Times editorial board returning to pre-mass society views on immigration is them deciding that some level of diversity is "sufficient" and then going about deciding how best to manage the problems it creates--one of the more likely solutions will be controlling conflicts by controlling discourse about them.  This is where the future of racism comes in.

#5 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 30 June 2013 - 09:54 AM

Despite the growth of a cottage industry of HBD discussion online, very little if any of its ideas have seeped into mainstream debate.  Perhaps the closest it came to influencing policy discussion was in the controversy over race-norming in university admissions and Ward Connerly's efforts in California to proscribe the use of race when factoring student qualifications.

Meanwhile in mainstream publications race has retained third rail status.  This can be seen in both the lack of robust public discussion about racial differences, such as the tendency of black-dominated cities to resemble Beirut, and in a focus on race scandals, wherein public figures are subjected to trials of public opinion and forced to go on apology tours for making comments that are deemed racially insensitive.  Jimmy the Greek, Don Imus, James Watson, Rick Sanchez, John Derbyshire, and most recently Paula Deen have been put in the media version of wooden stocks for violating public etiquette on race.  News outlets have increasingly obscured the race of criminal perpetrators.  Differences in outcome between groups are assumed to be evidence of discrimination or "institutional racism".  Race etiquette is policed by commissars and professional demagogues.  Despite all the words and links traded on HBD blogs, mainstream discussion utterly rejects the idea that group differences are legitimate and based in part in biology.

John Derbyshire's excommunication from National Review showed that even in mainstream conservative outlets, racism was getting nowhere.  Derbyshire was summarily fired for writing a parody of "the talk" that black parents were presumed to give their children on how to cope with anti-black racism.  His parody, which was innocuously dull, embarrassed NR editors before their liberal peers.  NR editor Rich Lowry thought it was "appalling", the kind of womanish overreaction one has come to expect from mainstream conservatives as well as liberals.  (It's chief problem was that it was unfunny and vaguely self-pitying.)

In short, HBD has only succeeded in constructing a "race-realist" ghetto; its samizdat, no matter how genteelly phrased, has failed to influence public debate.  If anything, public debate has responded to HBD racism by devising ever more sensitive tripwires rigged to mines that would explode the careers of hapless victims.  Uproars over police profiling ignored the high rates of minority conviction and the data on race of criminal assailants from victim reports (despite all those statistics in HBD blogs).  When Barack Cornball Obama was down slightly in polls in 2008, liberals declared that this was proof that America was still very racist.  Opposition to illegal immigration from Mexico got Lou Dobbs fired from CNN.  Phantom cries of "nagger" at Tea Party rallies became instant, irrefutable evidence.

Why did race-realism fail to influence public debate?  One reason is that the race-realist/HBD movement has in various ways internalized the social etiquette of the mainstream.  HBD racists eschew controversial language about race and vigorously deny being racist (to hear them say it, no one could be less racist than people who spend all their time scrutinizing racial differences).  This produces a "constant denial" effect:  because racism is denied everywhere, people see it everywhere.  No one admits to it, but since it has to exist, scrutiny increases until it is detected.  Despite being regularly accused of racism, HBD racists often show little interest in what racism was and how it functions, a telling avoidance.

Another reason is that HBD has tended to focus excessively on intelligence as the dominating factor in race differences.  This has had the effect of both sterilizing HBD discussions, reducing them to numbing statistical differences and arguments about the measurement of intelligence, and downplaying deeper issues regarding diversity and racial cohesion.  Eager to differentiate themselves from white nationalists, HBDers frequently call for race-neutral immigration laws that focus on the average racial intelligence of immigrants, with a distinct preference for "model minority" Asian immigration (more waifus).

HBD discussion has tended to put forward libertarian-sounding arguments that obliterate cultural, social, and environmental factors and trade the liberal harm-based morality for the libertarian liberty-based morality.  The changes that race-realism would attempt to bring about would leave substantial problems unaddressed, imprisoning social policy in a kind of intelligence-based exploitation bordering on slavery.  (In a sense this is already underway via economic globalism, which exchanges slave plantation colonies for offshored production in countries with much lower standards of living.)

In short, the pursuit of racially neutral arguments has led to a self-defeating reductionism that limits the scope of discussion and misdiagnoses critical problems with multiculturalism.  Its proffered solutions would not produce a stable order because they ignore factors necessary to human happiness, among them civic equality, shared morality, and ethnic homogenity.  Worst of all it cringes defensively before liberal charges of racism, despite its obviously racist preoccupations, and more or less accepts the liberal view of racism as a mortal sin.

The Modern Age of Racism began with The Bell Curve and culminated in a blog ghetto.  The genteel world of HBD racism is completely inadequate to describing what race and racism are.  Present mainstream thought is based on purely irrational arguments that revolve around harm-based morality, whereas HBD racism is an ideology based on statistics with no solutions and no awareness of its own racism.  I'll talk about the future in my next post.

#6 Shrill

Shrill

    MPC Gold Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1692 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 30 June 2013 - 11:50 AM

Davila said "The racist is annoyed because he secretly suspects that the races are equal. The anti-racist is annoyed because he secretly suspects that they are not." This is a little too cute, but reading the comboxes of the largest HBD-themed blogs suggests that there's something there. Lots of whites getting off on resentment (and the subtext is often the justification of what would otherwise be understood as personal failures), very little fruitful speculation about how to graft the fact of race-based IQ differences into actual, viable policy, and almost no further inquiry about the nature of intelligence itself, which would seem like the most interesting aspect of the whole thing. Forbidden ideas attract independent thinkers, which is great, but they also attract halfwits who revel unreflectively in the thrill of forbiddenness. The latter type dominates (think of Gresham's Law, but for ideas), and inquiry slows.

#7 Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Chaperoned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1929 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 30 June 2013 - 12:55 PM

That HBD-style reasoning was doomed from the start I think we can safely attribute to human nature:

Cardinal Newman:

Logic makes but a sorry rhetoric with the multitude... To most men argument makes the point in hand only more doubtful, and considerably less impressive. After all, man is not a reasoning animal; he is a seeing, feeling, contemplating, acting animal. He is influenced by what is direct and precise. It is very well to freshen our impressions and convictions from physics, but to create them we must go elsewhere.

The problem with HBD arguments is that they are necessarily abstract and deal with probability, averages, extended groups -- all things we don't think very well about or feel much attachment to. And, as Newman says, when you're advancing an argument you're already in territory where people are more inclined to disbelieve than to believe you.

A key problem with mass society is that human beings aren't very good at thinking in terms of a mass. Confronted with a multitude of data, our tendency is usually to simplify--and treating all races as equal or fungible is one way of simplifying the confusing myriad of data we have wrt mass society. HBD arguments (or "racism") is, in a sense, a plea not for stupidity or ignorance but for allowing more distinctions and more complexity when thinking about human groups. Most people are overwhelmed by the complexity already.

#8 Shrill

Shrill

    MPC Gold Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1692 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 30 June 2013 - 01:41 PM

View PostProbably Not Pozo Goldstein, on 30 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:


A key problem with mass society is that human beings aren't very good at thinking in terms of a mass. Confronted with a multitude of data, our tendency is usually to simplify--and treating all races as equal or fungible is one way of simplifying the confusing myriad of data we have wrt mass society. HBD arguments (or "racism") is, in a sense, a plea not for stupidity or ignorance but for allowing more distinctions and more complexity when thinking about human groups. Most people are overwhelmed by the complexity already.

This is spot on. In a small enough community, it's taken for granted that the village idiot not be entrusted with tasks he'll find impossible. People set expectations (and perhaps more importantly, make allowances) based on what they see. In a small-scale enough society, even a hypothetical one that's racially heterogeneous*, HBD would be a waste of time, because it deals primarily with averages, and it's large groups that necessitate a reliance on averages.

*I'm not aware of any small-scale, stable, racially diverse community ever existing, but it might be possible if the people shared some other sort of strong bond, perhaps shared religion.

#9 George Obsolete Peppard (GOP)

George Obsolete Peppard (GOP)

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1532 posts
  • How did you find MPC:i thought it was AA
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes

Posted 30 June 2013 - 02:31 PM

View PostProbably Not Pozo Goldstein, on 30 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

A key problem with mass society is that human beings aren't very good at thinking in terms of a mass. Confronted with a multitude of data, our tendency is usually to simplify--and treating all races as equal or fungible is one way of simplifying the confusing myriad of data we have wrt mass society. HBD arguments (or "racism") is, in a sense, a plea not for stupidity or ignorance but for allowing more distinctions and more complexity when thinking about human groups. Most people are overwhelmed by the complexity already.

But it's not a multitude of data, really.  How hard is it to quantify the Bell Curve of Racial IQs?  Clearly even the most low IQ of groids understands the concept (otherwise they would be confused instead of angry), and only academics who want to explain things away in a dizzying array of obfuscating social "science" even bother creating complex explanations.  

That said, you are spot on here:

Quote

That HBD-style reasoning was doomed from the start I think we can safely attribute to human nature

In times of plenty, it's a built in instinct for Europeans to minimize the polarization of their nations by overlooking the faults in their kinsmen.  Minorities are included for the most part in kinsmen in both liberal and conservative circles, but for different reasons.  In more affluent conservative areas, blacks actually tend to be better read, and have more middle class values, since property values keep them sparse and of the most elite brand.  In liberal areas, liberals' propensity toward feelings of inferiority make them deferential to anything that is an alternate or destructive force to the status quo.  The most overt racism has always existed in areas that are quickly transitioning from a conservative, family oriented atmosphere to one of minority infestation, like DC in the 70's or the more outlying areas of Chicago today, where stability erodes and people are forced to make desperate decisions.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of human dynamics understands that in a democracy you can't marginalize a people openly while providing them the same rights as everyone else.  It's one of the reasons why sane people understand the threat that Sharia law would impose, and has, on any nation that Muslims occupy.  And skin color in particular is a key metric by which we unconsciously "judge" people on sight, so this marginalization would be particularly devastating.  If it were the official position of the US Department of Whatever that blacks are officially dumber than whites, and stated as such, we would have a civil war overnight, and it wouldn't even (totally) be the nogs' fault.  The issue we should be confronting, and have refused to do so far as a nation, is why we wholeheartedly subsidize the worst of black behavior through the policies of affirmative action, welfare, and "hate" crimes.  What makes this a touchy subject is most of the black communities' refusal to self-police, which hangs conservative blacks out to dry and promotes opportunistic nagger demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Close behind is the unwillingness of comfortable conservative whites to force the issue, and the instant demonization by the liberal media when they try.

#10 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 30 June 2013 - 07:33 PM

In thinking about my next post, it occurred to me that I needed a little more connective explanation to get there.

Race looks much like the color spectrum.  At the highest level of the color spectrum are the primary colors, which combine to form secondary colors, which combine to form tertiary colors, and so on until you have the full color spectrum.

Race can be defined as the result of population inbreeding due to geographic isolation.  The three primary races are usually identified as white, black, and Asian, but as you zoom in closer you see a plethora of secondary races, such as Middle Eastern/Semitic, South Asian, West African, Nordic, Mesoamerican, Slavic, Mediterranean, and so on.  Not coincidentally these labels often correspond to stable population centers that have remained relatively enclosed (though not unchanging) for thousands of years.  Zoom in still further and you see tertiary races that roughly correspond to nations, such as Baltic, Russian, Scottish, Irish, Japanese, etc.  You see a similar mixture of isolated and cross-bred characteristics when looking at language groupings, for example Germanic languages which share similarities with regard to grammar.  Like races, as languages evolve in relative isolation from one another they can grow apart and acquire unique features compared to other languages in the same family.

The claim that race is a "social construct" is meant to assert that we share so much genetic material that many if not most of the differences found between races are the result of culture--that is, if you raised a West African from birth in the manner of an English gentleman, his behavior would be markedly similar to his English peers and not very much like those in Africa most like him in outward appearance.  While this may be true to a degree for individuals--compare the waifu-seeking Nipponophile who moves to Japan because he "feels" closer to Japanese culture--populations in most parts of the world remain relatively stable, so that group differences persist and form continuities of primary, secondary, and tertiary racial families.

Moreover, large scale migration invariably impacts culture.  Small numbers of West Africans emigrating to England may adopt English customs out of necessity, but emigration in larger numbers results in West Africans preserving or reverting to cultural preferences found back at home.  Regarding race as a social construct does not aid us very much in understanding human behavior and human differences--it seems merely to be a preference for not thinking about population differences.

Even if race were a social construct, it wouldn't matter very much because the evidence would support the view that culture is imprinted early in personal development and remains a constant through life.  This conservation of cultural values and cultural expression is one reason why the nature/nurture distinction doesn't amount to much.  Nuture that is immutable becomes de facto nature in terms of behavior.  It would likewise mean about the same for large migrations, which bring culture along with them as luggage.  At any rate, culture certainly must interact with biology because cultural values influence reproductive strategies (consider a culture that emphasizes strong nuclear families vs. one that emphasizes tribal affiliation).

Race as a social construct is useless when it comes to an understanding of racism, because whether the conflict is based in culture or biology, the end result is still group conflict.

Like race, racism can be viewed as a spectrum of awareness to group differences.  At the highest level is awareness to differences in custom and language, but as you zoom in you can see awareness of relatively small differences between relatively related groups.  This is in fact what Harvard researcher Robert Putnam found in his study of population diversity:  even minor group differences resulted in a decrease in trust and cooperation, i.e. something we might call racism.

This points to a different but I think more useful definition of racism than the traditional emphasis on biological differences.  Racism can be defined as the existence of low trust, low cooperation relationships between culturally distinct groups.  Indeed the word is already pretty much used in that sense, as when people (usually liberals) fret about "racism" directed against Muslims, who are not exactly a coherent race.  In this definition I dispense with biology because culture allows a greater degree of granularity, but the cultural conflict will virtually always have a biological component--i.e. an influx of Catholics into an area might lead to conflict with Protestants, but if so it would probably be found that the Catholics in question were of a different tertiary race, or in the case of Irish Catholics a different species altogether.

If this definition holds water, then racism really is all around us and has been for all of human history.  It still mostly has to do with cultural and biological boundaries, but can take on subtler forms, such as regional chauvinism in the United States which is influenced by demographic differences but does not involve easy to identify sub-races.  Racism so defined still tends to coagulate around culture and biology because of their importance to moral development--the violation of strong shared morality is what activates racism.

Not all group conflicts involve racism per se.  Consider the cultural gulf between those who favor "homosexual equality" and those who regard homosexuality as a gross perversion.  Their attitudes toward each other are expressed with much the same vehemence and hostility as the racism that flares up between groups of distinct populations thrown together by migration.  You don't have to view every group conflict as a result of racism, but examining conflict from this perspective helps us to understand the persistence of racism despite intense social conditioning in Western countries.  The truth is that our attitudes toward racism are schizophrenic--we must not notice moral, cultural, and biological differences, except that we do so all the time.  And when we hate people for reasons other than race, it still looks and sounds a lot like racism.

As it is used today, the word racism is essentially a political accusation.  It places special moral opprobrium on group conflicts that happen to match a specific filter, sometimes with the proviso that racism requires some kind of power structure--interaction between dominant and subordinate groups or cultures.  But this definition falls apart upon noticing conflicts between subordinate groups, such as blacks and Mexicans, that involve explicitly racist interaction, even down to territorial ethnic cleansing.  The dominant/subordinate distinction is merely a rhetorical gambit used to justify the liberal filter.

Liberalism's faulty definition of racism isn't entirely irrational, however, when you take into account harm-based morality, which naturally focuses on interactions between dominant and subordinate groups.  Liberal views on racism aren't entirely the product of them living in 98% white neighborhoods from which they safely denounce imagined uprisings of cross-burning Tea Partiers, while pricing every black but Will Smith out of the residential market.  Some part of it is produced by a skewed morality that emphasizes harm over other moral factors, and particularly harm practiced by a dominant against a subordinate group.

I'm not glibly saying everyone is racist.  Rather, I'm saying that racism has always been a very common expression of group conflict, most of which is ignored today owing to political fashions.  Even if you don't regard certain race-invoking conflicts as expressions of racism (such as arguments between whites about which whites are the most loathsomely white), they are so closely related to racist conflict that the argument becomes one of semantics.  If it's not racism, it's a form of group antagonism that comes clothed in all the rhetoric and vehemence of actual racism.

If you don't share the liberal fixation on harm-based morality, you probably see plenty of racism that liberals don't.  What I am arguing here is that if you look at race as a spectrum of aggregate population differences, it's absolutely everywhere, but effectively invisible to those who have been programmed to define racism as only those conflicts which match a filter created by Western liberals.  The history of racism in America isn't whites and blacks (cue poignant music, a tear streaking down a Negro cheek, Paula Deen begging for her contracts), it is blacks, Irish, American Indians, Southerners, Catholics, Italians, Mormons, Chinese, Mexicans, WASPs, Jews, rednecks, Okies, Germans--in short, every group that has ever been here conflicting with every adjacent group.  You would think that a people with so much racism under its belt would have learned something about how it works, but we seem as confused as ever.

#11 gay chevy

gay chevy

    Posting Associate Level II

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 270 posts
  • LocationIf it was up your ass you'd know.
  • How did you find MPC:Paula Deen's hair stylist.
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, with a fatty

Posted 30 June 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 30 June 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

it's absolutely everywhere, but effectively invisible to those who have been programmed to define racism as only those conflicts which match a filter created by Western liberals

I really think this says it all. The reality is simply that one abnormal ideology has been successfully inculcated in the collective mind of Western society. Those reading this are familiar with the extent to which this ideology has been deliberately spread and enforced.

The question that needs to be asked is why. Because an inquiry of this nature in today's age either requires or results in a total paradigm shift, its not one that the collective mind can handle, for reasons which really boil down to one's ability (or inability) to navigate daily life.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what form or under what banner race-conscious thought/discussion/action in both the private and public spheres takes -- it will be dictated by the stipulations inherent in the particular ideological environment.

It's a matter of DE (vs RE) programming. Human beings quite naturally notice differences along cultural and biological lines, and quite legitimately establish behavioral distinctions based on these differences. In the West, it is this natural process that has to be prevented beginning at a young age. What makes the success of this prevention so amazing is that the conscious and subconscious mechanisms that are at work in the recognition of distinct racial characteristics are the same ones that enable us to make necessary classifications and distinctions in virtually all other aspects of life. You'd think that more people would reach syntax error on a regular basis. It's really an illustration of the complexity of consciousness. People need to be deprogrammed back to their natural state (in the sense that racial recognition is natural), whether its by creating a growing space for open discussion, or whether its by some other more or less socially abrasive but inevitable means.

I think its a question of whether or not people will be able to work the issue out "diplomatically" and rationally via established social and political channels, or if it will take some cataclysmic event or series of events (ultimately the natural result of our conscious perversion) to jolt the collective mind back to normalcy.

In historical terms, it was only recently that people began to attach some sort of stigma to race-conscious thought and action. Prior to this it was the rule.

#12 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 30 June 2013 - 10:53 PM

I was worried that post was so verbose and over-explanatory that no one would finish reading it.

#13 TAO

TAO

    ファックボーイ

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2539 posts
  • Locationfuccboi town
  • How did you find MPC:lol/lmao
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, raped by Bill Cosby

Posted 01 July 2013 - 09:59 AM

Part of the problem with HBD is that it didn't have enough weight to lead to valuable ideological conclusions on its own, so it simply became a tool for paleocons and technocratic libertarians to argue in favor of positions that they already held. All the statistical nuance and complexity might be nice academically, but politically it's a dull blade at best.

Immigration is the most obvious example. HBD says little about a hypothetical immigrant population with an IQ distribution similar to that of the native population but wholly antithetical culture and morality. Why Reconquista when the moors are just as crafty?

I won't even get into the whole fixation with Asians and ancient friends. No HBD points for marrying someone from your own race and culture and forfeiting that IQ and bucket teeth boost.

#14 Lord Stanfield

Lord Stanfield

    Computer Expert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 148 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:29 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 28 June 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

"It is my argument that this period is drawing to a close, that the approach of race-realist/HBD racists has already obtained maximum effectiveness, and that changing social conditions merit a rethinking of their topic focus, policy prescriptions, and rhetorical posture."  


"In short, HBD has only succeeded in constructing a "race-realist" ghetto"

I would generally agree with this. The HBD crowd has been pretty successful at spreading their findings and a large portion of people with any curiosity on the subject know about IQ differences and probably even grudgingly accept them. The problem is that the HBD perspective on race, contrary to the liberal one, presents many of the social problems of society as endemic and permanent.  Liberal thought policing aside, most people find the idea that there is a large underclass of people in the US who are stuck in a permanent state of criminality and lack the ability to fully integrate very unpleasant and they will seek out a more positive narrative if one is available.  I would also note that in many ways, the left's most recent narrative of race, which also came of age in the 90s via critical race theory, has also run its course to a large extent and has, in both the media and academia, been resigned to a ghetto of its own.  Funding and interest in the liberal arts has declined markedly and economists and other social scientists increasingly shun historicist explanations of any kind and increasingly favor spergy data-driven analyses (like the ones Taleb tears apart in The Black Swan). News outlets largely relegate civil rights issues to special sections and segments that have been commodified for maximum appeal to a target audience in the manner of sports or entertainment news.  

It's actually somewhat remarkable how the discourses of the critical race theory and HBD crowds compliment each other and probably, to a certain extent, sustained one another. What they have in common is that they acknowledge innate racial conflicts that are structural in nature and cannot be resolved through a doctrine of race-blindness.  In fact, if you take a bunch of paragraphs out of one of Tim Wise's books and substitute "white privilege" with "innate IQ differences" he sounds more or less like a low-effort HBD blogger.

Edited by Lord Stanfield, 01 July 2013 - 01:38 PM.


#15 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 01 July 2013 - 03:48 PM

Yes, I like this idea that all contemporary views of race have reached the end of the line.  They all shared a naive optimism about conflict and located the problem with rational discourse and conscious politics.

#16 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 02 July 2013 - 10:09 PM

Racism, once the liberal filter is removed, can be seen as a constant in group interaction.  But the liberal filter emboldens favored groups, such as blacks, to feel little or no responsibility for their own conditions, because all bad outcomes can be attributed to racism.  It also disallows direct criticism of the favored group, which leads to an exploitation complex.

An exploitation complex is a mindset created by the existence of a victim narrative that weakens constraints on antisocial behavior.  Social constraints exist to compel cooperation and to limit the tendency to game systems.  They help foster trust and create psychological barriers to antisocial behavior.

Much of the harm-based morality of liberalism actively undermines social constraints because it creates a moral worldview in which deviant behavior is explained as the outcome of discrimination.  Although of course all behavior is influenced by outside influences and previous interactions, this reductive explanation escalates conflict and prevents antisocial behavior from being controlled.  The presence of a victim narrative to excuse deviant behavior becomes an irresistable spur to more antisocial activity because it increases rewards to deviant individuals and destroys empathy between groups (an important retardant to antisocial behavior).

The result is an increase in antisocial behavior particularly among groups most inclined to it, because primary antisocial behavior is weakly controlled leading to secondary antisocial behavior that is consciously influenced by the weak controls.  Thus you have phenomena like flash mobs which come about due to a combination of alienation, immediate gratification, and knowledge of weakened or overburdened systems of social control.

The future of racism thus has three main strategies.  To simplify things I will use as an example victim group black Americans, but these strategies can easily be applied to other groups that exploit victim narratives.

The first step is to discredit the liberal filter.  To do so it is necessary to put into context the victim status of favored groups.  Victimhood is a one-dimensional status which makes the victim the passive recipient of aggression.  This tends to remove from consideration a more complicated history, which may involve cultural incompatibility, disparities in social organization, and the past influence of other group conflicts.

Blacks, for example, are favored victims owing to the slave trade.  However one of the main groups involved in the slave trade were blacks themselves.  African tribes, like many other parts of the world, practiced slavery long before Europeans colonized parts of Africa.  This is not unusual for pre-modern societies; within the context of world history it is one of several outcomes to territorial conflict (other outcomes include expulsion from territory and group extermination).

Most of the slaves that were exported did not end up in America, but were routed to the Carribean (where slaves were routinely worked to death), South America, and the Middle East.  Relatively few slaves were routed to America, and these numbers declined as time went on and direct slave trading was abolished in the Southern states.  Had America and indeed the entire West completely abolished slave trade from the beginning, it would have had little impact on West Africa's participation in the global slave trade.

Posted Image

Although it would be callous to suggest that American slaves benefited from the relatively better conditions of slavery in America, another factor in the treatment of blacks was that they were not well conditioned by culture or biology to existence in a much more complex society.  While bringing them to America might have increased their life expectancy vs. other slave destinations, it also predicated unequal treatment post-slavery owing to the problems inherent in having a substantial minority population that was culturally and biologically unprepared for the level of complex civilization in which it found itself.  This is more or less proven by the persistent fact of greater social dysfunction among blacks, which has increased rather than declined after the advent of civil rights legislation intended to equalize their status.

What the liberal filter obscures is that every other group has had to deal with aggression from other groups.  This not uncommonly leads to periods of subordination which are only punctuated when the group is able to reach a greater level of organization (or else when the dominant group collapses).  Furthermore, when we frame the issue as group conflict to which cultural incompatibility and organizational disparity contribute, it is apparent that liberals themselves advocate draconian forms of group aggression.  What is often called cultural imperialism involves the manipulation of other groups to accept one's own cultural preferences.  The dominant culture benefits by colonizing the intellectual space of other groups.  This is the form of aggression favored by those who argue for the spread of liberal democracy and harm-based liberal morality.  It is no less a form of dominance than colonizing and decimating more primitive societies.

The second strategy is to reduce the social opprobrium on racism so that it matches the routine nature of actual group conflict, rather than drastically overstating filter-matching grievances.  This includes proofs of racism embedded in language, such as the exaggerated reaction to words such as "nagger".  Just as unfiltered racism can be seen as a constant in group interaction, so is the existence of pejorative terms for other groups.  Such language expresses a natural friction when groups with differing cultural values interact, and is an important facet of moral foundations such as loyalty, authority, and perhaps also purity.  Selectively depriving some groups of such terms only succeeds in creating a neurotic energy around inter-group relations, disguising conflict and weakening cohesion in the whole society.  It makes such language a proxy for the entire victim narrative.  If recent history is any guide, poisoning the use of such words in humor or to express legitimate anger does nothing to reduce group resentments, and may increase them by exacerbating rather than dulling sensitivities.

The third strategy is to attack harm-based morality as an insufficient control on social behavior.  In order to live in a high-functioning complex society, other moral foundations must be employed.  When harm is elevated above other forms of moral reasoning, the result is a steady degradation of non-harm based moral behavior in the public and private spheres.  Therefore harm-based morality presents a serious threat to cohesion, leading to an explosion of dysfunctional behavior that threatens the stability of the entire society.  Furthermore, harm-based morality is particularly exposed to system gaming in the form of group competition to achieve favored victim status.  This increases group conflict and sensitivity to harm.  In fact, assimilation of diverse groups has tended to rely on other forms of morality, such as patriotic identification.  Harm-based morality may be seen as a general solvent of group cohesion.

The failure to adopt these strategies is why HBD/race-realism ultimately failed to make any impact on group conflicts or to improve cohesion.  In some ways it has exacerbated these conflicts by creating further grounds for suspicion and by introducing but failing to resolve factors motivating perception of harm, such as the fairness of systems that produce disparate results.

Group conflict can only truly be removed by removing groups from interaction with each other.  Failing that, management of conflict will have to involve not the suppression of symptoms of conflict, as has been the failed liberal strategy, but the awareness that conflict exposes the inability of harm-based social constraints to produce stable societies.  Additional constraints based on other moral foundations must be used.

#17 Lord Stanfield

Lord Stanfield

    Computer Expert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 148 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:17 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 02 July 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:


  While bringing them to America might have increased their life expectancy vs. other slave destinations, it also predicated unequal treatment post-slavery owing to the problems inherent in having a substantial minority population that was culturally and biologically unprepared for the level of complex civilization in which it found itself.  This is more or less proven by the persistent fact of greater social dysfunction among blacks, which has increased rather than declined after the advent of civil rights legislation intended to equalize their status.

Blacks are probably the most important group to analyze as their recent history is the driving force behind the racial equality/racial differences debate.  One of the favorite tropes of Malcolm X-era black power books and films is to quote, as a corollary to the threats to black rights in modern society, a line attributed to the slave owner Willie Lynch about stirring distrust and conflict amongst black slaves as a means of controlling them.  While the premise of this argument is easily dismissible as a rather shallow 'whitey be trickin us' conspiracy theory, it nevertheless makes a very telling statement about the need for consensus among blacks.  More precisely, complex democratic societies require their members to maintain a balance between shared values and orderly ideological disagreement and conflict.  This ordered conflict, which functions as both an ideological rudder and as a release valve for societal tensions, is something that the black community cannot maintain.  One only has to look at the countless deaths in Los Angeles over the sporting of blue or red headbands to see why any potential basis for tribalism is feared by the more intellectually capable members of the black community.  

What white leftists coined as the awakening of 'black consciousness' during the 60s was the realization among blacks that they could wield a potent but limited power through mass consensus, even if that consensus had no basis in rational thought or even in the long-term welfare of black people.  The feeling of empowerment blacks got from this era of consensus also crippled their ability to police themselves.  In their eyes, criticizing and attempting to control marginal urban blacks reminded them of an era where they were compelled to do this at the behest of the white-dominated power structure.  The inability of blacks to engage in rigorous debate and self-criticism was also worsened by a general resentment toward white society which intensified as black IQ deficits resulted in the failure of the civil rights movement to create a sufficiently large black middle class. The lack of a critical mass of high IQ blacks and the removal of white control created a pseudo-tribal society where the black masses are controlled by a small group of charismatic demagogues and intelligent dissidents (broadly labeled 'black conservatives') are excommunicated with a religious fervor.  The main successes of this new black social order have been its ability to compel the government, through a combination of guilt and fear of anarchy, to provide government jobs and handouts to black constituents in politically significant urban areas and its ability to occasionally subvert the American legal system.

There are several reasons why this 'new black order' will not survive.  First, as witnessed in the Zimmerman trial, the consensus-seeking identity politicking of black society looks more and more absurd as it moves outside of the context of the 60s when a large segment of the public could still remember instances of mass white on black violence.  This creates a generational problem where liberal boomers have discovered that maintaining the dominance of their racial perspectives amongst the younger generation is much more difficult than blackmailing their parent's generation with white guilt; therefore you begin to see the emphasis on silly and self-defeating arguments about 'privilege' and 'microagressions' which are indistinguishable to most young people from the other lame admonishments they get at mandatory school assemblies (which are the only forums where people like Tim Wise have a large white audience).

The other major threat to the power of the current black political order is the emergence of Hispanics as the most important racial constituency of the democratic party and, as a result, the group that receives the most focus in public discussions of poverty and ethnic relations.  The current status of blacks in southern California reveals, again, the way in which black consensus and identity politics sabotages blacks in a complex society.  While Black demagogues at UCLA and Berkeley continue to try to enforce a naively optimistic consensus view of a united people of color (blacks and Mexicans) working together to take down the white patriarchal etc. etc., nearby Mexican gangs are busy cleansing their neighborhoods of blacks and the Mexican Mayor of LA is busy ignoring it in favor of his own identity politics.  The long term implications of this are that blacks will either have to let go of their hostility toward white society and acknowledge that their survival in an increasingly complex world depends on white benevolence, or else be crushed under the heal of a slightly more intelligent and organized minority group.  The loss of political capital in both black political ideology and the white liberal arguments that support it opens up a possibility for a new political discourse which acknowledges group differences as a determiner of outcomes, but, unlike the current HBD discourse, offers some structured welfare and concessions in the name of fairness instead of blind libertarianism and uses a comprehensive understanding of intra-minority differences (instead of just white vs. non-white) to negotiate the way in which different racial groups should be assimilated into the majority culture.

Edited by Lord Stanfield, 03 July 2013 - 06:27 PM.


#18 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    im 45 and <3 booze

  • Administrators
  • 34527 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:35 PM

Great points.

#19 Shrill

Shrill

    MPC Gold Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1692 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:49 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 02 July 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:


The third strategy is to attack harm-based morality as an insufficient control on social behavior.  In order to live in a high-functioning complex society, other moral foundations must be employed.  When harm is elevated above other forms of moral reasoning, the result is a steady degradation of non-harm based moral behavior in the public and private spheres.  Therefore harm-based morality presents a serious threat to cohesion, leading to an explosion of dysfunctional behavior that threatens the stability of the entire society.  Furthermore, harm-based morality is particularly exposed to system gaming in the form of group competition to achieve favored victim status.  This increases group conflict and sensitivity to harm.  In fact, assimilation of diverse groups has tended to rely on other forms of morality, such as patriotic identification.  Harm-based morality may be seen as a general solvent of group cohesion.

This third part is, I suspect, the most important. The implications go beyond race to virtually every other social issue. "I wasn't even harming anyone" presupposes perfect knowledge of events and their externalities, and that presupposition is fundamentally irrational. Yet nobody challenges it. It shifts the burden of proof from the socially powerful (power is, by definition, the ability to advance an agenda that changes the status quo) to the socially weak, who are ironically both more likely to be harmed by harm-based argumentation and less likely to be able to make (or even formulate) a persuasive case that this is happening.



#20 Lord Stanfield

Lord Stanfield

    Computer Expert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 148 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)

Posted 05 July 2013 - 03:42 PM

View PostSTEVE SCALAR, on 03 July 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:


This third part is, I suspect, the most important. The implications go beyond race to virtually every other social issue. "I wasn't even harming anyone" presupposes perfect knowledge of events and their externalities, and that presupposition is fundamentally irrational. Yet nobody challenges it. It shifts the burden of proof from the socially powerful (power is, by definition, the ability to advance an agenda that changes the status quo) to the socially weak, who are ironically both more likely to be harmed by harm-based argumentation and less likely to be able to make (or even formulate) a persuasive case that this is happening.

A good example of this is the histrionics you get from the left about the fact that we interned a couple thousand Japanese people during WWII in what were comparatively humane conditions at the time.  Little attention is paid to the fact that the Japanese were brutally raping and murdering millions of people in south east Asia or that they had, at the time, one of the world's most powerfully Navies and they were threatening to attack the American mainland.  Considering the fact that Japanese spies were instrumental to the most devastating Naval attack in American history at Pearl Harbor, imprisoning anyone that could have been a jap operative (even if they were mostly innocent people) was not an irrational or unnecessarily hateful thing to do.  

But therein lies the crux of the anti-racist arguments from the second half of the 20th century, the idea that the continued stability of Western society is a given and therefore, because they aren't in any "real" danger of being oppressed or destroyed, white societies have the obligation to avoid harming minorities even if it comes at their own expense.  Of course to make this argument palatable to the public, you need to have a centralized news media with an editorial agenda of downplaying or ignoring harm to white society(s) and sensationalizing every "man bites dog" example of white violence or bigotry.  Media is another area where I have some optimism.  Major Newspapers and tv networks have been experiencing a steady decline in profits, viewership and public trust over the last few decades.  While HBD blogs like Sailer and Mangan's haven't gained mainstream recognition, the success of 'politically incorrect' news sites like Drudge Report and WND are illustrative of the potential for news that isn't driven by toothless red vs blue partisan agenda.

Edited by Lord Stanfield, 05 July 2013 - 03:48 PM.



MPC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.