Now on twitter!
Bitcoin address: 1EBdjRPvKkRE4Hf4JgT7rYpz6svZX4xHCz
Bitcoin address: 1EBdjRPvKkRE4Hf4JgT7rYpz6svZX4xHCz
We shall drown, and nobody will save us
You know time differences suck when you see an interesting post such as this, but by the time you wake it already has tens of comments. As I’m late to participate in that thread I might just as well write a post of my own. The topic does merit a long one. I’ll try to play Arnold Kling on this one.
If there’s anything to the reactosphere, it is two pillars: HBD and evolutionary psychology. Both argue strongly against multiracial societies. The latter tells you that humans are tribal, and all societies work in the illusion that we are all part of the same tribe. The former that different tribes have become so different that there’s no way they can regard themselves as one tribe.
The realisation is very liberating, as you stop being confused about why different people behave differently. It changes your expectations and makes live so much more understandable. However when thinking on the big picture, HBD and evo-psy are extremely scary things to know. For, what is one to do with the minorities already present? It follows that they can never be integrated. Ever. It’s impossible. As impossible as people growing wings. It can’t happen.
The corollary of this is very scary, and that’s in my opinion the reason (or the overt reason, for I think there’s a covert and more important reason) for the extreme hostility it causes in liberals of all colors. Racism is evil because if it were true, it would be the cause of great evil. Because you would have to undo multiculturalism by separating people again. Nobody wants to do that. It’s messy. It’s nasty. Isn’t separation the official basis of evil for modern liberals? All these New-Age crap they put on movies about how “good is about connection” and “bad is about separation”? You can imagine how that makes me feel as an introvert.
Undoing multiculturalism is such a messy thing that not all reactionaries agree with it. It is an important disagreement. It also shows why there’s no “reactionary movement”, beyond a group of people who have found the pattern in the lies that the establishment is telling. In the end, as you can see at Foseti’s and Thrasymachus’ that, as it couldn’t be otherwise, the disagreement is being framed as class struggle.
If HBD were to go public, there’s three possible scenarios, and all have historical precedents.
1. Removal (Best case: the Greek-Turkish population exchange. Worst case: Yugoslavia, Ruanda.)
2. Separation (Best case: Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. Worst case: South Africa’s Bantustans.
3. Hierarchical integration. This is what Singapore does, and Rhodesia used to do.
As I was saying Removal and Separation are out of the question. They both require either war or a massive restructure of the state and society. It’s beyond messy. It’s pretty much unthinkable, and the mere argument is illegal and prosecutable in much of the developed world. Let’s call them both the nasty solutions.
Which takes us to the 3rd point. That’s the cool solution. Foseti has been arguing for Hierarchical Integration. Jim also has written something similar. I’m not aware of any specific arguments on this topic by Moldbug but I have many reasons to think he would be for it. The idea is that minorities make as much trouble as you allow them to do. Beyond any genetic proclivity to violence and disorder, there are ways of taming any group of people if you have a proper system set to the task. Another way of putting it would be that anyone can be made to work if the incentives are set right. That’s the lesson that Foseti takes from independent Rhodesia. And that’s also pretty much the lesson of Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew is hailed in the reactosphere not so much for his economic governance than for his much publicised argument on “in multicultural societies people vote for their tribe, so that’s why we don’t do democracy over here”. That sentence alone was what made him the hero of the HBD circles.
That sounded like an argument for separation, and the three nations of Singapore (Chinese, Malay and Indian) do tend to keep to themselves and generally live close-by to their own kin. There is little inter-marriage, which the government seriously discourages (think of how messy the statistics could get). Still most people would be surprised at the level of mingling that happens in Singapore. Now I’m no expert in Singapore’s ethnic policy, but I know what I’ve seen. Lots of work units are integrated, and you see the three peoples hanging out together quite often. The elites of each race mostly speak English as a common language, so they have lost their tribal identity. They look very civil and well adjusted. In short, Singapore is playing a complex game of carrot and stick, setting incentives to individuals from all tribes to assimilate not to the majority (Chinese) culture, but to the state (English) culture, through which they can get status and good money.
Foseti must have seen that and feel that hey, why can’t we do the same? Keep the low performing minorities tightly controlled, doing their stuff while sucking up the assimilable ones into our elites. It does produce a fairly pleasant environment without the traumas of removal or total separation. Blacks aren’t the issue, see Rhodesia was able to do the same thing with way more blacks than the US has.
For that he is called a Brahmin, a Cathedral sellout. The point is he’s too married to the system, which is why he argues for a cool solution. Nasty solutions are for people with nothing to lose. Who cares about total upheaval if you hate society? Hell, bring it on. But it’s hard to feel that way when you have kids and a nice job.
Anyway Psychoanalysis is just a sophisticated way of applying ad-hominems, and ideas should be taken at face value. Class struggle is coming back in force, and in the end all humans care about is status, so it’s hard to make friends across class lines. Words are being thrown around, such as Genteel reactionaries. Still, before starting again with false-consciousness and materialistic sociology I think we must look at the issues more closely.
Let me first disclaim than I am not a white nationalist. Not because I don’t think that the world would be better off with more whites and less of the others. I do yearn for the racial ratio of 1900. The thing is nationalism as a sociological phenomenon has some particular dynamics, and white nationalism is just not feasible. Ask hbdchick for details.
There are several arguments against Hierarchical integration. First is, even if different tribes they can be put to work with strong law enforcement and smart incentives, the fact is that in average they will always perform worse than whites. Which means that if you have anything like a free market, different tribal groups will end up doing working in different occupation ladders. Yes the right tips of the Bell Curve might integrate, but those are the sellouts. The mass of the tribe will become servants or doing cheap and unpleasant jobs. You will get a caste system, but without Hinduism to comfort you. That’s not stable.
The fact that Singapore pulls it off is simply because Indians and Malays psyche’s balance their notable inferiority towards the local Chinese with their outstanding superiority towards their tribal cousins in India and Malaysia. Low status sucks but it trumps deprivation. Also Singapore’s Chinese have basically dismantled their cultural heritage. The old overseas Chinese institutions were all destroyed methodically after the Civil War. The result was the creation of the ideal British colony, sans Brits. English is the national language, Mandarin is encouraged as useful for business, but most people are bad at it. It’s hardly a wonder that Singapore produces no culture whatsoever, in contrast to Hong Kong, a way nastier and messier place, but the centre of a huge music and cinema industries.
The Singaporean model of race relations, aka the cool solution is proposed as the adult counterpart to the nasty solutions. But in the end they are both the realisation of HBD in the political sphere. And that has to be nasty by definition. HBD short-circuits the status assigning systems of any society. It kills wishful thinking, but it kills a lot more in the process. Genteels are deluded if they think that people can be made to be comfortable in their inferiority, and working-class people are deluded if they think that HBD stops at the race level. The taboo on HBD has as much to do with race as with the slippery slope that continues thereafter. I’ll write about that in a later post.