Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

On Genteels

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.

Advertisements

83 responses to “On Genteels

  1. John January 25, 2013 at 18:33

    The one thing that makes the Singaporean model untenable for other places such as Europe or the United States is the problem with differential fertility rates in the wrong direction. Over time, the NAMs increase in proportion, the jobs that they can do or will do becomes insufficient for their numbers, with social welfare filling the gap. After a while, social welfare becomes increasingly burdensome and eventually untenable. The reason Singapore succeeded is because all the natives, including the Malays having below replacement fertility rates. This couple with a highly selective immigration policy means the portion of low IQ from all races decrease as a fraction of the society. As you pointed out, not having democracy also helps them.

  2. asdf January 26, 2013 at 01:42

    This is a great post.

    I think most people are aware of how nasty the solutions to HBD are. I’ll try to come back to that at the end of this.

    The main problem with multi-culturalism is that it kills the host culture. I’m not to upset about blacks on a daily basis. Like Foseti I’m wealthy enough not to deal with them. I’m bothered by the fact that because we have to pretend when it comes to blacks we need to adopt all sorts of crazy ideas that are poisoning our culture (progressivism). White culture is sick and dying. That does bother me. If white culture was healthy and black culture was being fucked up in a corner somewhere I wouldn’t care.

    Foseti states that if you can’t beat progressivism it doesn’t matter. But minorities are part of the progressive coalition. As Moldbug says they are the “rivers of meat” progressives import to use as canon fodder on the front line. How are the OVs supposed to defeat the Bs when they are constantly importing more DHs?

    This question is obvious when we confront it. Foseti doesn’t have to confront it on a daily level the same way that a working class white does. He’s largely insulated. It clouds his judgement.

    My problem with Foseti is that I see the same attitude that I associate with cultural rot. Secular utilitarian careerism. The government is full of people like that. We complain about government being corrupt and inefficient but how do you think it gets like that? Government reflects the underlying culture, and Foseti is a product of that culture. I’ve seen what evil that attitude does. When I picture Foseti I picture every wormtounged opportunists I ever met in finance or government.

    I don’t claim there are easy solutions to HBD. I get Foseti’s fear. In fact I consider the race question the easier of the two, and that isn’t saying much. The bigger question is acknowleding HBD along class lines and coming up with cultural solutions that work for the entire bell curve.

    However, we won’t address that question, or any question really, unless people are willing to make the sacrifices to get them addressed. Foseti is not that kind of person who is going to upset the system. And yet you need people with something to lose to risk losing it if you want change.

    Traditionalism, religion, white nationalism, etc at least offer a vision of culture we know works and a reason to fight for it. Foseti offers no vision and no reason to fight for it.

    • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 08:13

      “The bigger question is acknowleding HBD along class lines and coming up with cultural solutions that work for the entire bell curve.”
      Precisely.
      But who has a vision on that? We’ll get genetic engineering before we get a good theory on what to do about that.

      • asdf January 26, 2013 at 14:41

        “But who has a vision on that?”

        Jesus.

        Seriously though, traditional morality was all about that. And they had to deal with Malthus. How difficult can it really be for us?

        Genetic engineering, like the singularity, just seems like giving up on the question and hoping the second coming saves us from our own weakness. What if it doesn’t?

        • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 21:47

          Well then we’ll deal with shit as it happens. There’s no vision, no plan, no general awakening. It doesn’t work like that. If your model is Jesus, it took 400 years to get a stable church going, and untold collapse and misery. And that church sucked.

          • Greying Wanderer February 13, 2013 at 13:38

            “But who has a vision on that?”

            Erm just look at all the social stats from Utah.

            The NW Euro version of Christianity modified by trial and error is immensely adaptive and makes an ideal model. If you don’t like the religious form of the model then HBD provides the scientific basis for the exact same model without religion.

            • spandrell February 13, 2013 at 13:44

              Immensely adaptive?
              Then why is it dead? Mormons in Utah are like Pagans in Sicily 500AD.

              And how does HBD produce a NW Christian kind of society?

              Why does it smell of wishful thinking here? If it only were so easy.

              • jamesd127 February 13, 2013 at 16:54

                What is killing Christianity is progressive takeover. They retain the old bottles and the old labels, but pour out the Christian content and replace it with progressive content.

                Thus the Greek Orthodox church, headquartered in Russia, is somewhat resistant, being less vulnerable to progressive power.

              • Greying Wanderer February 13, 2013 at 23:40

                It’s dying because
                a) it is being deliberately murdered
                b) it evolved by trial and error and had no *rational* basis for people who require a rational basis for believing in something.

                HBD provides the scientific basis for *why* NW Euro Christianity was so adaptive for 300-400 years.

  3. rightsaidfred January 26, 2013 at 03:27

    I would say that the current system is a defacto separation, removal, and hierarchical separation. The Elites foster their various enclaves while telling the rest of the country to diversify. They have the rope ladder pulled up into the tree house while they throw rocks at those below them. A nice social station if you can get there.

    I suspect the Elites have misjudged the demographics. High social economic status requires some support from below. Good luck with what is coming.

  4. munch January 26, 2013 at 05:57

    “Genteels are deluded if they think that people can be made to be comfortable in their inferiority”

    My father was a working stiff. He understood that there were Einsteins and Kennedys in the world, it didn’t bother him much. What he wanted was a fair shake, security for his wife and kids, no one taking what he earned. He did not want to live in a fantasy where he was as rich or as capable as everyone else. Anyone who goes to high school knows that some people are better at things, often important things than others. Most people can accept that.

    • Contemplationist January 26, 2013 at 08:03

      Exactly. It is trivially easy to change ideologies once the progressive ruling class has been dismantled. Look at how easily it went the other way! Or look at how easily the Soviet ideology went defunct.

    • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 08:07

      Yeah but your father saw himself as part of something bigger, as one of the nation, so he could be proud of, say, the moon landing, as something that “his people” did. A Black or an Indian wouldn’t.
      It’s about tribal pyschology. This is powerful stuff. People make up tribes (sport teams) just to get kicks on the group’s success.

      • SDL January 26, 2013 at 20:12

        A bit off topic, but I’d say your point here, Spandrell, is a nice way to divide the Clinton-esque liberals from the extreme Left who inhabit the Ivy League. The former’s end game is to make anyone who happens to live in America feel like ‘part of the tribe.’ Blacks, first-generation Chinese, third-generation Mexicans . . . the goal is to get them all to feel like they are part of something bigger–AMERICA–and can be proud of our societal achievements, from the Moon landing to everything else. I’d say this would be a nice goal to achieve . . . of course, it won’t ever happen. America is just a landmass.

        The extreme Left, on the other hand, hopes to get the Others into power, knowing that these Others will probably dismantle American (and, more generally, Western) culture. This is why someone like Foucault could support the Iranian revolution: his endgame was ultimately to see the West destroyed, to see the racist patriarchy overthrown. The extreme Left has effectively left the white American tribe and joined the Others; and they want to see their old tribe lose power. This is also why the extreme Left rarely talks about class anymore. They’ve realized that the people who will suffer first at this loss of power are the white working class, e.g. Munch’s father. So be it.

  5. munch January 26, 2013 at 06:16

    “in multicultural societies people vote for their tribe, so that’s why we don’t do democracy over here”.
    That’s why Barack Obama is President.

  6. Contemplationist January 26, 2013 at 08:01

    You are pretty much arguing the leftist point that Moldbug continually mocks – look at the power of our mob! you will lose! But this is an utter fallacy. The same thing that keeps the progressive in check, keeps the mob in check. If you can’t keep the progressive in check, he will import the mob, if you can keep the progressive in check, you can easily keep the mob in check.

    • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 08:08

      Can you elaborate? Not following you.

      • Contemplationist January 26, 2013 at 10:25

        Progressive policy allows and even encourages the diverse mob to misbehave. The mob is easily contained with non-progressive policy. To dismantle progressive policy, you need to defeat the progressive establishment. But, if you are strong enough to defeat the progressive establishment, it is trivially easy to control the diverse mob of oppressed minority LGBTWABCDEFGHs. Get it? They go together. Is it any wonder why the colonial age was possible? Simply because of ideology and culture. It wasn’t the Africans or Indians or Algerians who defeated the colonialists, it was other Europeans. So this argument is pathetically inadequate. People have been stable in their inequality for thousands of years.

        • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 10:38

          When I say that the arrangement is not stable I don’t mean that the mob will overthrow it. Of course mobs are controllable by smart law enforcement. But you make it sound easy when it’s not. Besides modern technology making mobs an order of magnitude easier to assemble, there’s the fact that multirracial arrangements are stressful for everyone involved.

          To avoid tribal mobs forming you need to buy out the tribal elites. To buy out the tribal elites you need to give them a place in the general elite, and for that you need to water down the elite culture to be able to integrate people from different cultural backgrounds. All while playing each prole tribe against each other. Feasible enough but by no means easy.

          What did colonialism achieve? Besides a population explosion and the destabilisation of the metropolis? You people talk about progressivism as if it were a totally contingent conspiracy of external enemies. It isn’t. It was an internal outgrowth of what people deemed a fucked up situation that required fixing.

          People have been stable in their inequality in slavery, serfdom, or religious loyalty to their rulers. How are you going to get that now? And keep modern levels of productivity? You can’t cherry pick ancient political culture without all the rest of the package.

          • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 03:45

            Spandrell: To avoid tribal mobs forming you need to buy out the tribal elites. To buy out the tribal elites you need to give them a place in the general elite, and for that you need to water down the elite culture to be able to integrate people from different cultural backgrounds. All while playing each prole tribe against each other. Feasible enough but by no means easy.

            No, you don’t have to integrate the best blacks, and indeed you don’t want to integrate the best blacks: You want the best blacks running the other blacks, as businessmen, lawyers, judges, and suchlike. You want to transmit white culture to the best blacks, make it easy for them to move between worlds, but the best way they can serve the elite, of which they are members, is by largely remaining in black society keeping it under control.

            The black businessman should have a lot in common with the white businessman, and associate quite a bit with the white businessmen, maybe even join the same club and hangout for a couple of whiskeys – but the black businessman’s employees and customers should be black, and the white businessman’s employees and customers should generally be white.

            If people were businessmen purely on the basis of merit, with no segregation or racial quotas in effect, then most blacks would wind up working for whites under white supervision. Trouble would ensue. Whites need the best blacks to manage the inferior blacks, so black businessmen need to be protected from white competition for their employees and customers for the sake of social peace.

            • spandrell January 29, 2013 at 05:11

              Isn’t it easier to leave them alone until they eat each other?
              Not even the best black managers can manage 150 million people in Nigeria.

              Sure diversity can be manageable, , but It’s a lot of trouble for a thankless job.

              • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 21:29

                Spandrel:

                Not even the best black managers can manage 150 million people in Nigeria.

                Sure they can: I have read reports by white explorers visiting Tutsi ruled regions. Tutsis owned the Hutus and farmed them like cattle, and the Hutus were happy with this arrangement. There was tranquility, safety, and law and order.

                Similarly the Asante empire. When the Germans freed the Hutus, and the British banished the golden stool of the Asante, chaos was unleashed, and continues to this day.

              • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 21:40

                Tutsi society relied heavily on Hutu serfdom, and the Asante empire relied heavily on slavery. The abolition of slavery and serfdom was obviously premature, and indeed quite disastrous. Whether we still need slavery is unclear, but it is mighty damned clear that we needed it back then.

          • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 03:50

            In short, segregation and enclaves for the masses, and a lesser degree of segregation for the elite. Pretty much what we have now, except that we would not wast the time of the best blacks by embedding them in white organizations while a white male does their nominal job, nor would we inflict integration and multiculturalism on the white masses.

          • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 04:03

            Spandrell:> You people talk about progressivism as if it were a totally contingent conspiracy of external enemies. It isn’t. It was an internal outgrowth of what people deemed a fucked up situation that required fixing.
            Reading old books, I don’t think it was a fucked up situation that required fixing. There was no more enthusiasm for expanding the ballot, ending slavery or emancipating women than today there is enthusiasm for gay marriage.

            Look at today’s “anti bullying” movement in schools – a movement not to suppress bullying, but masculinity. It is totally, 100%, astroturf. There is absolutely zero student support. Not even the slaves were all that anti slavery. Observe John Brown’s efforts to get some black faces in his disturbingly white anti slavery terrorist movement.

            Because slavery was in fact naturally winding down all the most able and ambitious slaves had already obtained their freedom through legal channels, and did not want to upset the applecart. So John Brown met a very depressing lack of enthusiasm from the slaves for his efforts to manufacture a slave revolt, or even the appearance of a slaver revolt. Today’s anti bullying movement is adults astroturfing as students, and John Brown was whites astroturfing as blacks.

  7. Will January 26, 2013 at 08:56

    The thing is nationalism as a sociological phenomenon has some particular dynamics, and white nationalism is just not feasible. Ask hbdchick for details.

    Ask her about what? She seems wrong in general.

  8. Will January 26, 2013 at 09:04

    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.

    People already naturally segregate. It’s not so much about massively restructuring society as introducing greater local sovereignty and free association so people can greater enforce what they already practice.

    And I don’t see why removal and separation are necessarily more “nasty” than forced integration.

    • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 09:35

      If people naturally segregated, Mexicans would stay in Mexico, and Blacks wouldn’t have moved north. To some extend they do, but in the end they go where the money is.

      Nasty solutions are nasty because poor people don’t want to be forced to associate with each other. They want access (if only theoretical) to the big fish.

      • Will January 26, 2013 at 10:14

        People do naturally segregate even when they move to wealthier locales for economic reasons. And black and Mexican migration have more to do with force than anything. Blacks of course didn’t sail to the Americas on their own initiative. The surge in Mexican migration over the past 20 years is largely due to subsistence peasants being cleared off subsistence lands after NAFTA.

        • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 10:20

          How segregated are you if you go to work to the same places? To the extent you engage in economic competition you aren’t segregated at all. What white working class people resent is having to compete with people from different cultures/living standards. Having to assimilate to that means basically being forced out your birth tribe.

          • Will January 26, 2013 at 10:35

            I’m not sure what you mean. People are forced to do things due to economic circumstances. And they’re prevented by force from doing things to avoid integration.

            • spandrell January 26, 2013 at 10:43

              There’s no force making Mexicans go to the US and take US prole jobs. Money might compel you to do things but that’s not ‘force’. Landless peasants could’ve go to their own cities instead of migrating abroad. It just happens that the money is where white people are. That will never change.
              It doesn’t matter that Mexicans live close-by in segregated suburbs if they go on taking jobs serving white people. Where’s the separation?

              • Will January 27, 2013 at 03:34

                There is force involved when peasants can’t practice subsistence agriculture anymore and are forced to leave.

                Many of the landless peasants did crowd into their own cities. Mexico City is one of the largest cities in the world.

              • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 05:07

                Spandrell:> It doesn’t matter that Mexicans live close-by in segregated suburbs if they go on taking jobs serving white people. Where’s the separation?

                Mexicans with regular jobs are seldom a problem, and if they are a problem, they should not have jobs.

      • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 04:59

        They naturally segregate on a smaller scale. Observe the school cafeteria. Now if we put a sign saying “negro section” over the negro section of the school cafeteria, no one would get confused.

        Problem solved. We don’t need the nation to be 99% white, or even ten percent white. We just need whites to be able to keep unapproved blacks away from them, for example in a white suburb, the only blacks allowed will be upper class blacks and black employees carrying id from their current employers, which employers will be responsible for those blacks good behavior, after the fashion of Rhodesia or white South Africa. In much of the US it quietly and unofficially tends to work like that already. Integration and multiculturalism is for those whites without power.

        • spandrell January 29, 2013 at 05:15

          You make it sound easy.
          To do what you say requires people to accept HBD. And if they do that, it’s orders of magnitude easier to go caveman and just move them all to Detroit.
          Singapore had to be very careful with their minorities because they are a weak enclave surrounded by enemies. But why should anyone else take the trouble?

          • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 21:19

            Spandrell:

            You make it sound easy.

            It is easy. There is already a negro section in the school cafetaria. Put a sign up saying “negro section”. There are already certain areas where a black driving a car is likely to be stopped, and police will carefully check him for any grounds that they can find for arresting him, and since everything is illegal, grounds for arresting him will usually be found. Publish notifications as to what areas blacks should avoid and what constitutes legitimate grounds for being in those areas, and arrest people for being in the wrong area without good cause, instead of for traces of drugs, faulty lights, weapons, inadequate pollution controls, etc.

            Just speak the truth, and allow working class whites to live the truth. All the the necessary institutions are already in place and furtively running, just you have to pretend they are not running, and they get suppressed amongst less privileged whites.

  9. Will January 26, 2013 at 09:55

    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.

    Both Rhodesia and Singapore were/are small polities of under 10 million, smaller than NYC. They’re not examples of a “solution” to anything except satisfying the people who supported and support the polities. Their footprints are small enough, and people are free to leave them, so their integration isn’t as inhumane as forced integration on a large scale. It’s one thing to have multicultural cities like NYC that are integrated, in a hierarchical fashion or not, while there are other territories around for people who don’t want integration. It’s quite another to force it on huge swathes of territory.

  10. Will January 26, 2013 at 10:24

    You may be interested in this presentation by Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, on multiculturalism in which he talks about some of the points you make in your post, specifically in his distinction between “Western” and “Asian” multiculturalism:

  11. Anonymous January 26, 2013 at 16:38

    The cool solution is considered by the people who matter to be just as evil as the nasty solution.

    More importantly there are jews who are making damn good money off of all this misery, and they don’t intend to stop any time soon.

  12. Dan January 28, 2013 at 20:26

    I think leftism is a by-product of success. People who are smart and busy will come up with causes if they find no big problems. Same sex marriage? A solution by people scaping the bottom of the problem barrel. The number of people who actually get one is not just a tiny fraction of the population in general, it is even a tiny fraction of the ‘eligible’ population. Consider the effort sprung forth, distorting most situational TV programs for fifteen years in pursuit of this one cause for instance.

    Leftists are busybodies who need to be working on a cause. Which is why the success of the modern West is so conducive to leftism. Everyone is fat, and everyone has every basic need met by extremely cheap (in comparison to history) food, and cheap manufactured good from China. Climbing the heirarchy of needs, next comes self actualization, which you get by feeding the third world poor or gay advocacy or similar diversions.

    If we have really permanently relegated ‘real problems’ to the past, then funhouse-mirrors leftism will rule the day. Since ‘real problems’ seem like to re-emerge in the future, pursuit of genuinely productive conservatism will happen again.

    Consider what has happened in crime. The 1950s and early sixties were really nice prosperous situation, which led to total liberation and the notion that we must love criminals and set them free really fast. Eventually things have shifted away from that nonsense after things got really, really bad everywhere. Now some very smart and tough criminal justice has brought levels down much lower. Brought to you by the same types of overeducated busybodies that brought the chaos years before.

    The left is busy like my two year old son. If he sees a pile of blocks he will knock them down. If he finds the blocks strewn about he will start ordering them.

    Reactionaries have to wait for the crap to hit the fan a little bit more. I was a real estate reactionary during the boom and nobody believed me. I almost stopped believing me and almost bought too high. Almost. But then the crash happened and nobody but nobody needs convincing now.

    Hasn’t the crap already hit the fan? Not so much. A little bit in South Africa which the media is totally ignoring now after focusing on non-stop during the 1980s. But nothing serious really. Last big thing was the collapse of Communism which was an instant jump discontinuity to the right for all countries involved.

    Life expectancy is as long as ever. Nobody goes hungry anywhere in the developed world. Violent crime has been dropping for 20 years in America.

    A giant piece of crapola is sailing toward the fan right now, in the form of collapsing growth and demographic effects across the developed world. Plus a new generation that is not succeeding in a sturdy way. Government budgets and economies will be crushed and I see no solution. Government budgets are already being crushed across Europe and Japan now.

    All those people knocking things down will be working to rebuild after the crash. Russia is building from the ground up and it is very socially and economically conservative right now.

    If BHO wants his name on the coming situation, so be it.

    Note that the crash I mean is a debt/currency crisis. Very common in history and life goes on but they are a massive shock to any country that experiences one.

  13. Dan January 28, 2013 at 20:52

    What is the solution?

    The most humane solution I can think of which preserves the left is a policy to make welfare conditional on limiting fertility. This is the only solution that preserves freedom for those who want it and stability of the state at a reasonably high level. The blogger formerly known as Half sigma has pointed out this solution often.

    If you are dependent on the state, you must limit your fertility as a condition for continued generous welfare. But there is all the freedom you could want, if you are self-supporting.

    This is a solution which the left should favor, as it preserves the state. Other steady states involve much deeper descent toward harder traditionalism. In any case, the left does not have a real choice but to stop the dependency ratio from increasing, for a bankrupt state is no state at all, and where is the left then?

    • spandrell January 29, 2013 at 04:53

      “I think leftism is a by-product of success.”
      To some extent, yes.

      “What is the solution?”

      There’s tons of solutions, all of which we know about. That’s not the problem. The problem is getting from here to there. You think the left will favor overt eugenics? The left it’s not about the state. The left is about the left.

      • Dan January 29, 2013 at 15:54

        My point is that the left must preserve the state because the state is the natural habitat of the left and a breakdown of the state is a return to a more naturalistic way. Leftism is after all essentially a rebellion against nature.

        • spandrell January 29, 2013 at 16:24

          Well yes to some extent the left is a set of attitudes that promote the expansion of the state. But that’s not everything to it. Egalitarianism is a method of expanding state control, but it’s also a deeply rooted belief in many, leftist or not.
          The left thrives on societal stress, because stress requires the state to intervene. Eugenics would solve a big deal of societal stress. There’s a big trade off here.
          It could happen but I’m not seeing it yet.

        • James A. Donald January 30, 2013 at 09:18

          The left does not think that far ahead.

      • Dan January 29, 2013 at 16:11

        Isn’t the left more likely to go along with something that is eugenic in effect, without calling it that of course?

        Eugenics is of course an actual project of the historical left. The left is rotten with this-world utopians and dysgenics is the giant killer of their projects. What killed the great utopian hope of the Obama administration in Egypt?

        I am pretty sure it is more than Islam: I am pretty sure it is a century of dysgenics.
        http://akarlin.com/2012/07/03/egyptian-progress/

        It seems like the left already has the platforms partly in place: ‘reproductive choice’, stem cell stuff… They do not believe there are any spiritual consequences for picking and choosing embryos.

        It is the leftist urban playgrounds that are under constant stress. My example of hard policing under leftist controlled places was meant to show that they will try to clean up their own nest in the end.

  14. Brendan Doran January 29, 2013 at 01:45

    Well if your not too busy looking down your nose at them, Hamilton’s Great Beast is stirring. Yes they lack leadership – which would normally be many here, or the likes of Foesti – but you’re ..comfortable. Very well. Understand the Great Beast Stirs. At the moment that is power lying fallow..which is not the normal state of Power. For fallow Power to even be possible it requires an absence of conflict, and there is conflict.

    I think I would be concerned with first things first – unseating the Mad Emperor Progressives have become. What occurs after is of secondary importance. First win, then worry about building..whatever.

    And understand it is the corruption and the ruin, and their unwise mad greed to take it all and leave none for the rest, salting the earth behind them that is Our Ruling Classes firm policy, it is here they are vulnerable. All other issues are secondary, including race. Or class.

    The Future belongs to the winner. Now that is the Progs. That alone would rouse men to action, indeed the Black Flag.

    • spandrell January 29, 2013 at 04:59

      Thing is Progressives aren’t the Mad Emperor.
      They are a majority of the population.
      I don’t know this Great Beast you talk about, but of the angry young people I hear, what they want is outright socialism.

      • James A. Donald January 29, 2013 at 21:01

        Spandrell:

        > Thing is Progressives aren’t the Mad Emperor. They are a majority of the population.

        The majority of the population is on welfare and/or fatherless. A household, (not that the typical voter is a member of a household) is better off with no one employed unless their earned income exceeds sixty thousand or so, The traditional paradigm of a husband and that husband making a living only makes sense if husband is earning substantially above seventy thousand. Most people below a hundred thousand are not working class, but underclass.

    • Greying Wanderer February 13, 2013 at 13:51

      “And understand it is the corruption and the ruin, and their unwise mad greed to take it all and leave none for the rest, salting the earth behind them that is Our Ruling Classes firm policy”

      Quite. They have *no* brakes and no limit.

      The currently most comfortable segment instinctively know this and this debate is about them trying to delude themselves that their families being the last to be eaten by the crocodile is a solution.

  15. Pingback: Randoms « Foseti

  16. Pingback: linkfest – 02/12/13 « hbd* chick

  17. RS February 13, 2013 at 09:58

    > I suspect the Elites have misjudged the demographics. High social economic status requires some support from below. Good luck with what is coming.

    Misjudged? That would require a serious intellectual attempt to judge shit and be a disciplined futurist in the first place – something I don’t think we really have much of anymore among the Western high elite, with some ethnically self-interested Ashkenazim being the major competent exceptions.

    To err you must try, but they don’t even try that much. I’m sure David Brooks reads lots of serious shit such as Edge but I doubt he really gets it fully, or wants to. We have a fair cohort of serious futurists over at Edge (mixed in with some silliness) that hold mainstreamish posts somewhere (as opposed to weird ronin philosophs like ourselves) — but clearly TED, not Edge, rules the mainstream idea space. There is some great stuff at TED, but with few exceptions said stuff is from specialists and technicians, not people with a serious general grounding in futurism or (in a broad sense) anthro/history/etc. Most really ‘broad’ shit at TED consists of e.g. Alex Tabarrok bringing you the latest pious chin scratching about near-term prospects for glorious cities and flying cars in Black Africa. Or at best, some explorations with reference to the Tooby/Cosmides ‘era of evolutionary adaptedness’, lol. Which is not to say that Tooby/Cosmo haven’t made any beneficial contribution at all ; just that the Cochran/Harpending/Hawks picture is just *slightly* more honest and realistic.

  18. RS February 13, 2013 at 20:49

    > Last big thing was the collapse of Communism which was an instant jump discontinuity to the right for all countries involved.

    I think the picture is more mixed. I know for sure that birth rates dropped immediately in most of those countries — I think largely because state fecundity programs tended to be dropped (they’re back, in Russia anyway), but perhaps also because of cultural liberalization, and at least in Russia certainly also because of the depression-then-boom shock. I guess the Late Sovs pretty largely suppressed the church, but they also suppressed rock & roll. Not sure if I would’ve done similar if I had been king over there, but it’s going to have some pro-traditional effect regardless of my feelings. As another illustration I think the ost bloc actually jailed some number of homos. That’s a bit much for me, man, but again there’s at least a marginal pro-trad effect whether I like it or not. They may not be big indulgers of gays today but I don’t think they are in prison. Finally, and importantly, Russia always had tons of fairly non-White Muslims, but I don’t think(?) there were nearly as many in the ethnic Russian fatherland proper. My vague recollection is that one practically needed a license in order to move to a different geographic location, at least oftentimes.

    • jamesd127 February 13, 2013 at 22:43

      On economic policy, the collapse of the Soviet Union was an abrupt and major move rightwards (or, as I prefer to say, away from leftism, since leftism is a single doctrine, whereas rightism is everything else, just as in the wars of religion, Roman Catholicism was a single doctrine, and protestantism everything that disagreed with Roman Catholicism.) However, socially the Soviet Union moved rightwards ever since the great purge, when Stalin announced Utopia had arrived, and there would be no further movement leftwards.

  19. Greying Wanderer February 14, 2013 at 00:00

    “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.”

    Separation *will* happen eventually. It always does. (Although more into national groups than racial where possible as racial groups are too diverse.) The ruling elite will try to prevent this by becoming increasingly authoritarian – and that will probably work, possibly for a long time, but not forever and the separation of whatever groups survive the authoritarian stage intact *will* then happen.

    The project can’t be saved. The best option is to let the planned balkanization take it’s natural course and allow the non-nation to dissolve into separate nations. Dissolution doesn’t require any action – it will happen naturally unless it is prevented. The only action necessary therefore is to try and prevent the authoritarian stage from getting off the ground and thus preventing the dissolution for a time as the time the authoritarian stage lasts will be at least as bad as the Soviet Union imo and possibly a lot worse.

    • RS February 15, 2013 at 21:36

      What do you mean by national? Pretty ambiguous word — I almost think you mean subracial/ethnic, but I dunno.

      • Greying Wanderer February 16, 2013 at 16:24

        “What do you mean by national? Pretty ambiguous word — I almost think you mean subracial/ethnic, but I dunno.”

        Yes.

        (The word national derives from “born” so it’s completely unambiguous – except in the modern world so fair point.)

        It’s like two competing gravitational forces. As the country balkanizes the cohesive force weakens and people will naturally gravitate back towards the nearest blood instead. In a lot of cases that won’t be very clear at all and so in certain places new nations will be born e.g. a “euro-mutt” nation will develop in some places. The only way to prevent it is an authoritarian state – which i think you can already see forming – and that only temporary (although temporary can be a very long time).

        In the long run i think an authoritarian state trying to hold it together for however long it can will be a lot bloodier.

        • RS February 16, 2013 at 18:52

          I think your picture is pretty plausible. I’ve written in the past that as you add foreigners to the West or core West, IQ changes linearly or arithmetically — it even rises when you add NEAs or postsoviet/Israeli Ashkenazim — but social trust may go through rather nonlinear changes. That can be a major driver of ‘back to blood’. Another driver may just be an ‘aesthetic’ feeling of disorientation and rootlessness/homelessness — which I think even individualistic races can certainly experience, just not as quickly as other races.

  20. RS February 15, 2013 at 21:33

    This is a great post and an important question. We should keep this thread of debate in mind over the months and years to come.

  21. RS February 16, 2013 at 19:06

    I would almost be more prone to dispute the plausibility of your authoritarian state. The capacity for piety, and for dumping on Whites, seems inexhaustible, yet there’s a charade aspect to it, a malaise. Thras recently commented on this — on the New Left program developing a certain hollowness deep down that was full of solid confidence in 1968. I’m never quite sure how much of the vicious animality (however ‘banal’ or non-banal) of ’17 or ’33 is really looming out there….. particularly among elites.

    • Greying Wanderer February 23, 2013 at 23:56

      “I’m never quite sure how much of the vicious animality (however ‘banal’ or non-banal) of ’17 or ’33 is really looming out there….. particularly among elites.”

      Hollywood/TV is the canary in the coal mine. If i’m right you’ll see ever-increasing amounts of vicious animality directed against white people.

  22. jamesd127 February 16, 2013 at 21:49

    Thras recently commented on this — on the New Left program developing a certain hollowness deep down that was full of solid confidence in 1968

    Have not seen this comment.

    I don’t think it is true. Rather, it follows the aftermath of every left wing victory: For example, when they were abolishing slavery they expected that most blacks would be able to function normally like whites in white society, without needing white supervision or white welfare. When this turned out to be false, they were deeply shocked and disappointed, but proceeded to a left wing solution – police and welfare.

    The new left disappointment resembles the anti slavery disappointment and the emancipation of women disappointment. They are always, predictably, disappointed, but no matter what the outcome, it is nothing that further expansion of the state cannot fix.

    • RS February 17, 2013 at 12:16

      see his recent post on hbo shows

    • RS February 17, 2013 at 12:38

      who when? i don’t think too many people thought that about blacks in 1861-5, not to mention 1870 when you had the tragicomic results of Reconstruction Black political power. but i cant deny that people came around in time to pretty wild views on Blacks and women.

      The thing you may want to consider is, Blacks were probably substantially less degenerate circa 1920 or 1940 than they are now. Not a total difference but a notable difference. Women too. Since then, it’s pretty likely that Blacks have taken an extra hammering from unfortunate differential fecundity, vs Whites. And both groups entered upon their liberation with a lot of valuable mental capital — inertial traditional thinking and feeling — that is now dissipated. They were also daily faced with the traditional modes of mind in White men, also dissipated now.

      Thras might answer you by saying there is more loss of confidence since 1965 — because as tragicomic as Reconstruction was, it’s the last 50 years that have demonstrated True detraditionalization in ways that cannot be obscured, or palliated by inertial partial persistence of traditional modes of mind. That doesn’t mean he would necessarily join me in suspecting that present elites may be too flaccid to produce a more explicit left authoritarianism.

  23. jamesd127 February 17, 2013 at 21:49

    RS:
    I don’t think too many people thought that about blacks in 1861-5
    In 1866, those who seriously believed it took power, so there had to be a lot of them – indeed a lot more of them then than now. In this sense, the loss of confidence started shortly after 1866.

    Similarly giving two Noble prizes to Marie Curie for work that was unremarkable when all male teams did it was an implicit admission of that which was explicitly denied – that women cannot accomplish top level science in the hard science fields. Not only do today’s elites know that the orthodoxy against human biodiversity is a lie, they have known it since 1877.

    • Baker February 18, 2013 at 04:22

      I wouldn’t say Marie Curie’s work was unremarkable. The Curies discoveried the elements of and isolated the chemical compounds of Polonium and Radium (and it was Marie Curie who initiated the experiments), a discovery which deserved a Nobel. This was what the second nobel (in chemistry) was explicitly worded for, but her husband was dead by then and she received it alone. Giving her two Nobels was certainly an overkill, but the first was in physics and had their own reasoning, so there was an overlap.

  24. jamesd127 February 18, 2013 at 07:39

    “it was Marie Curie who initiated the experiments”

    The second note: July 18, 1898 which described the initiation of the experiments that led to the discovery of radium, and the third note December 26, 1898, which describes the discovery of radium, are signed by Pierre Curie as the principle investigator.

    Marie Curie’s role in the discovery of radium was probably that she washed Gustave Bémont’s bottles.

    The big idea, that what we now call radium existed, and how to find it, first appears in a paper that bears the signature of Pierre Curie as principle investigator, and the actual hard detail work, getting messy with pitchblende and translating the big idea into a specific method, dirtying lots of bottles in the process, and actually producing a tiny sample of radium, was done by Gustave Bémont under the supervision of Pierre Curie.

    The discovery of radon was far more important than the discovery of radium, for radon revealed that radioactivity was a manifestation of the transmutation of elements, radioactive decay, and revealed that the same element could exist in several different kinds, what we now call isotopes. Do you remember who discovered radon?

    Actinium was about as important as radium. Do you remember who discovered actinium?

    Friedrich Giesel discovered actinium, which is about as radioactive as radium, and elucidated its chemistry. Why does radium deserve a prize, and actinium not deserve a prize.

    Radium got a prize because there was a pussy on the team.

    In so far as any one man was responsible for revealing the chemistry of radium, if anyone deserved a prize for the chemistry of radium, that man was Friedrich Giesel, who was entirely alive when Madame Curie got a prize for repeating some of chemistry work using materials he gave her.

    • Baker February 18, 2013 at 10:10

      What’s your source about the principal investigator and other information? Regardless, obviously Pierre must be the principal investigator. At that time Marie didn’t even have a PhD and as a female had difficulty getting a scientific job or giving research speeches. What I meant was that it was Marie who was initially get involved in finding some new radioactive elements on the signs of unusual radioactivity, and Pierre later joined her. Though it does seem like Pierre was a more accomplished scientist and might’ve contributed more in the research.

      I am not familiar with the history to argue about it. I would surmise that discovery of radium and polonium was regarded because it was an earlier discovery which led to the discovery of actinium and radon, and had a more difficult discovery and isolation process at a time when few other scientists were suspecting. Yes Marie got disproportionally celebrated because she was a female, but that doesn’t mean her work didn’t deserve a prize. Nobel was not always fair anyway.

      > Marie Curie’s role in the discovery of radium was probably that she washed Gustave Bémont’s bottles.
      > Radium got a prize because there was a pussy on the team.

      Without substantial evidence and concrete arguments such claims are uncalled for, and look like wild claims by an insecure male supremacist who cannot even tolerate a single case of female doing important scientific work.

  25. jamesd127 February 18, 2013 at 11:18

    What I meant was that it was Marie who was initially get involved in finding some new radioactive elements on the signs of unusual radioactivity, and Pierre later joined her.

    Pierre Curie invented and built a device to measure radioactivity, and set his wife to work measuring the radioactivity of various things. Marie Curie found that everything that had uranium in it was radioactive, roughly in proportion to the amount of uranium, and the chemical form did not have very large effect.

    Pierre Curie and Marie Curie then wrote a note, with Pierre Curie as first name and principle investigator on that note, that some things were radioactive that did not contain uranium, it looked like some other element or elements were causing it, and they proposed to track down those elements.

    Pierre Curie then set Marie Curie to tracking down what was later named polonium, and Gustave Bémont to tracking down what was later named radium. Later Marie Curie measured the atomic weight of radium, of a sample of fairly pure radium obtained by Gustave Bémont, and found an atomic weight that fitted eka barium – which was not a big surprise since Gustave Bémont had been working on the assumption that would come to be called radium was eka barium. This is her famous physics/chemistry “discovery” of radium.

    Subsequently Friedrich Giesel studied the chemistry of radium, and found efficient means for extracting radium from pitchblende, with the result that for a time radium was most economical source of strong radioactivity.

    Without substantial evidence and concrete arguments such claims are uncalled for, and look like wild claims by an insecure male supremacist who cannot even tolerate a single case of female doing important scientific work.

    If Marie Curie was doing important scientific work, how come you have never heard of Gustave Bémont, Friedrich Giesel, and Fredrich Dorn? The discovery of radon was vastly more important than the discovery of radium, since it was radon that revealed transmutation of the elements by radioactive decay, and the existence of what we now call isotopes. No one remembers Gustave Bémont, the man who actually developed the first procedure for extracting radium, and who proceeded to do so under Pierre Curie’s supervision.

    If Gustave Bémont’s work was unremarkable, then Marie Curie’s work was only remarkable because a woman did it.

    • Baker February 18, 2013 at 12:10

      IIRC Pierre’s electrometer was designed to measure electric current. Was it Marie or Pierre’s original idea that it is to be used to measure radioactivity and find new elements? Wikipedia’s describe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#New_elements sounds like Marie did take a significant part in it. You version paint a different light than conventional presentation but there is no reason that I should assign creditability to it. Do you have expertise that give you uncommon insight in the matter or you just read from popular science and have a interpretation bias?

      The Curies published their result together, and Pierre personally argued that Marie should be included in the physics nobel. It seems absurd that a then still highly sexist scientific community would give such credit to a female who did unimportant work, in spite of Pierre’s love for Marie.

      > If Marie Curie was doing important scientific work, how come you have never heard of Gustave Bémont, Friedrich Giesel, and Fredrich Dorn? The discovery of radon was vastly more important than the discovery of radium, since it was radon that revealed transmutation of the elements by radioactive decay, and the existence of what we now call isotopes.

      As I said, Marie became especially famous because she was a female. But that doesn’t mean her prize is unjust. Polonium and radium was the first in a series of discovery of radiation element that directly led to further discovery, that’s why they are important.

      > No one remembers Gustave Bémont, the man who actually developed the first procedure for extracting radium, and who proceeded to do so under Pierre Curie’s supervision.

      Because the Curies were the lead physicists who reasoned and proposed to find the new elements, and Bemont was the chemist who helped them in developing the procedure. So the credit mainly went to the Curies.

  26. jamesd127 February 18, 2013 at 11:41

    Baker February 18, 2013 at 10:10
    Without substantial evidence and concrete arguments such claims are uncalled for, and look like wild claims by an insecure male supremacist who cannot even tolerate a single case of female doing important scientific work.

    That fact that you do not know who discovered radon should be all the evidence you need to conclude that everything that you think you know about Marie Curie is a lie.

  27. jamesd127 February 18, 2013 at 13:40

    Was it Marie or Pierre’s original idea that it is to be used to measure radioactivity and find new elements?
    It was Marie’s idea that it be used to measure radioactivity, in that the first research paper employing it in this use was published under her name. Pierre’s idea to use it to find new elements, in that the first paper proposing this use had his name first, and him as principle investigator.

    You version paint a different light than conventional presentation but there is no reason that I should assign creditability to it

    As you said, she got the second Nobel for having a pussy. This should give you reason to doubt the first Nobel. The second prize casts doubt on the first.

    My claim was that she got the first Nobel for “work that was unremarkable when men did it”. Gustave Bémont, Friedrich Giesel, and Fredrich Dorn did work that was similar, similarly important or considerably more important, and it was unremarkable when they did it.

    The pairing of Marie Curie and Gustave Bémont fits the classic pattern of an affirmative action employee paired with a white male to do the actual work. Observe how Gustave Bémont vanishes from history, like Stalin’s commissar, a guilty secret.

  28. Pingback: She really just said that | Bloody shovel

Please comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s