Friday, January 05, 2018

Objectivism: An Autopsy, Part 3

In some respects, Rand's ideology of Objectivism can be seen as an over-reaction to the Marxist left. Rand lived through the Russian Revolution and experienced communism first hand. She despised the Marxian creed with every fiber of her being, and in her philosophy of Objectivism she sought to fashion a doctrine diametrically opposed to the collectivist and anti-capitalist dogmas of Soviet communism. Thus Rand wound up advocating a pure (some might say "extreme") form of individualism and capitalism as a way to oppose the murderous collectivism of Marxist-Leninism.

Rand began formulating these doctrines more than seventy years ago. The ideological landscape has undergone significant changes during this time. After the publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archepelago, the Soviet version of Marxism became thoroughly discredited in the West, even among radical leftists. But the pathological urge to impose equity fairness on modern society has persisted among our civilizations' left-leaning discontents. To scratch the equity fairness itch, a new type of Marxism needed to be formulated. Thus was born Post-Modernism and Identity Politics, which replaced the class conflict paradigm of the old Marxism with a new paradigm based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. This constituted a real improvement over traditional Marxism in that it justified and nurtured a powerful political coalition between white progressives and non-whites. Demographic changes caused by declining birth rates among whites and increased immigration of non-whites will increase the chances that the left, and quite possibly the radical left, enjoys a permanent electoral majority in the United States in future decades.
In the face of this (seemingly) impending dominance of the left, the right has begun to fragment and fall apart. No broad consensus has been reached regarding what should be done. Mainstream conservatives have merely buried their heads in the sand and pretended they are still living in the 1980s. Another faction on the right, along with much of the conservative base, has embraced an anti-immigration form of civic nationalism. A much smaller but noisier faction has jumped the shark and decided to embrace the identity politics of the left, applying similar ideological rationalizations to what they conceive as "white" interests (whatever those might be). In this shifting and jostling of ideological paradigms, the libertarian side of the right has become somewhat lost in the shuffle. That's not to say libertarians have disappeared completely. One still hears of conferences, books, speeches, even YouTube videos. But somehow the flame of Libertarianism, which seemed to flareup around the Tea Party movement in 2010 and Ron Paul in 2012, has in just four years been greatly dimmed. The enthusiasm has abated. Political energies, particularly on the right among the young, seemed to shift from concerns about the size government to issues involving immigration, changing demographics, and threats to Western Civilization.

Michael Lind has argued that America is undergoing a political realignment:

The partisan coalitions that defined the Democratic and Republican parties for decades in the middle of the twentieth century broke apart long ago; over the past half century, their component voting blocs — ideological, demographic, economic, geographic, cultural — have reshuffled. The reassembling of new Democratic and Republican coalitions is nearly finished.... 
Why is this all happening now? ... The culture war and partisan realignment are over; the policy realignment and “border war” — a clash between nationalists, mostly on the right, and multicultural globalists, mostly on the left — have just begun. 
For the nationalists, the most important dividing line is that between American citizens and everyone else—symbolized by Trump’s proposal for a Mexican border wall. On the right, American nationalism is tainted by strains of white racial and religious nationalism and nativism, reinforced by Trump’s incendiary language about Mexicans and his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S.... 
The rise of populist nationalism on the right is paralleled by the rise of multicultural globalism on the center-left. 
For multicultural globalists, national boundaries are increasingly obsolete and perhaps even immoral. According to the emerging progressive orthodoxy, the identities that count are subnational (race, gender, orientation) and supranational (citizenship of the world). While not necessarily representative of Democratic voters, progressive pundits and journalists increasingly speak a dialect of ethical cosmopolitanism or globalism — the idea that it is unjust to discriminate in favor of one’s fellow nationals against citizens of foreign countries.

There is obviously a great deal more to the realignment than just nationalism versus globalism. The radical left, through its infiltration of cultural and political institutions, wields an influence that far outstrips its numbers. Meanwhile, on the right, we find a small but noisy confederacy of racial nationalists busy stirring up trouble on the internet. Among all this reshuffling, libertarian creeds, including Objectivism, are struggling to extend their respective brands. In the second half of the Twentieth Century, conservatism in America was made up of a coalition of economic libertarians, anti-communists, and social conservatives. Now that civic nationalism is becoming the dominant ideology on the right, libertarians are increasingly going to find themselves the odd man out.

Evidence of this can be gleaned by taking note of a number of influential nationalists, both civic and racial, on YouTube. A surprising number of them started out as Libertarians (or at least libertarian sympathizers — e.g., Stefan Molyneux, Milo Yiannopolous, Richard Spencer, Gavin McInnis, Laura Southern, and Theodore Beale among others). Essentially, all these people fell under the spell of Ann Coulter's book Adios America, which sent shock waves through the right upon its publication in 2015. Coulter argued that the overwhelming majority of Third World immigrants would always support the Big Government policies of the left, and that if immigration is allowed to persist unchecked, the left, and quite possibly the radical left, would gain a permanent majority in America.

Orthodox Objectivism has, for the most part, remained immune to Coulter's thesis. Leonard Peikoff, toward the end of his career as a podcaster, briefly flirted with the notion. But Yaron Brook staged
a quick intervention and brought Peikoff back to the pro-immigrationist fold. While this may have preserved ARI from further Peikoff-inspired embarrassment, it hardly serves to make the Objectivist creed more attractive to young people on the right. Indeed, it would seem that young people with conservative and libertarian leanings are quickly losing faith in the do-nothing creed of Objectivist inspired laissez-faire politics. Objectivism and libertarianism having been trying to convert people to their respective creeds for over sixty years, and they have little to show for it. With the surge of the radical left (at least terms of social and cultural influence) in recent years, the right is beginning to retrench into old forms of nationalism, both civic and, sometimes, in extreme cases, even racial. As the right-left ideological paradigm shifts and new factions on the right form to challenge globalism and non-white identitarianism, it's not clear how Objectivism and Rand-inspired libertarianism are going to maintain even a small sliver of relevance.




43 comments:

Lloyd Flack said...

Rand's continued influence is more as a myth maker than as a philosopher. Her remaining philosophical influence is through being called in as an advocate for Libertarianism's non aggression principle. But she was not the only philosopher advocating this, nor the first and I think not even the craziest.
Libertarianism does follow her example of using definitions of words that are at variance with everyone else's. They tend to try to win arguments by semantic games in the same way that she did. The most important example of this is using a definition of coercion that is much narrower than everyone else's.
Her epistemology has little influence and even among objectivists her aesthetics has little influence that I can see.

Anonymous said...


Don't forget the factor of assimilation.

Today's immigrant might be tomorrow's nativist!

gregnyquist said...

Rand's continued influence is more as a myth maker than as a philosopher.

There definitely is the Objectivism as myth aspect. Even the non-aggression principle, despite its philosophical trappings, has a mythical aspect around it. After all, political systems are not founded exclusively or even largely on philosophical principles. They are arrangements that grow out of the interplay of various factions driven primarily by sentiments and interests. The trouble for Objectivism is it features a series of myths (along with philosophical rationalizations) fabricated seventy years ago to meet the issues facing the individualistic-secular orientated right in that era. Back in the forties and fifties, the right was chiefly concerned with the spread of communism/socialism. Now the chief concern is the rising influence in the culture of a radical left openly hostile to Western Civilization and immigrants from the Third World who don't appear to be assimilating.

A quick glance at Yaron Brook's YouTube page gives an indication of the diminishing interest in Objectivism. Brook has a Q&A live stream going on with 75 watching. None of the posted videos on his page have more than a thousand views. Meanwhile, a debate a few days ago between Richard Spencer and an English classical liberal has garnered nearly a quarter million views.

madmax said...

Greg, I agree with your main points as always but you say this:

"A much smaller but noisier faction has jumped the shark and decided to embrace the identity politics of the left, applying similar ideological rationalizations to what they conceive as "white" interests (whatever those might be)."

How do you not see what white interests are? I ask that as someone who still has a strong strain of libertarian ideas but has nevertheless tempered them with an understanding of racial hereditarianism and its implications. If white people become the minority in this country and lose power to a coalition of the left and non-whites, things will get *very* ugly. I don't think it is hyperbole to think that ethnic violence would be directed against whites. Look at South Africa. And that has come to be my biggest problem with the hyper-individualist libertarians like the Objectivists. They act as if all the world were European with the same IQ distributions and the same sexual fertility patterns and reproductive strategies (K selected). The problem is the difference in cognitive differences that exist amongst the racial groups due to what seems to be divergent evolution. There is not neurological uniformity in the world which Rand's system is based on. The best of the libertarian thinkers right now is Hans Herman Hoppe. He does not require the same metaphysical foundation that O'ists insist on and he is aware of the North / South IQ gradient. Like all Paleo Libertarians, he has a much better understanding of human sociality than the Randians. But even then, it doesn't seem that the multi-racialism of the current Western world could ever lead to a minimalist state let alone an anarcho-capitalist one.

I guess what I am asking is that with all that you have read about the social sciences I can't understand how you aren't more sympathetic with the European identity movements (Nazis excepted). It was the racialist writers and bloggers that shook me from my Randroidism; not you interestingly enough. I only came to appreciate you after having gone through about 7 years of intense reading and thinking on the related hereditarian subjects (race and sex realism). My gateway was Larry Auster who you know of as you used to comment on his site. That's something I don't understand about you. I'm not saying you should be an alt-right fan boy, but at least understand that white identarianism is based on a self-preservation instinct. Its not crazy as you seem to suggest.

Gordon Burkowski said...

@DB/GW:

As far as I know, neither of you has ever commented on Rand's critique of racism - or stated your own views on the matter. To judge from some recent posts, I think it's time that you did.

Lloyd Flack said...

Hoppe, like Rothbard before him, is worse than Rand. They are responsible for the obsession with property that is the bane of libertarianism. They try to put all moral questions in terms of property rights. They are the mirror image of communists. Where communists seek a world in which all individual aspirations are subordinated to communal goals they seek a world in which the communitarian aims or people are trivialized and individual goals are all that remains. Most people want a balance between communal and individual goals.

Anonymous said...

Rands essay Racism came out in 1964. She denied that group differences in intelligence have a genetic component. Thanks to Jensen, Murrwy, Hernstein etc we now know that Rand was wrong.

What policy conclusions should be drawn from that is complicated but there is no doubt racial egalitarianism os false


Anonymouse

Anonymous said...

Detroit is 83 percent black. The black IQ is 85. If Detroit were populated by whites with an average IQ of 85 it would look like the Detroit of today.

It is too bad but we dont know how to raise IQ 15 points.

This isn't racism it's a fact.

Anonymouse

Lloyd Flack said...

She would have said it was irrelevant if true since she was only concerned with individuals.

Daniel Barnes said...

@Gordon, Rand on racism is about as sensible as Rand on anything else. There's the verbal blithering, both-sides blaming, the inevitable summoning of Objectivist Fantasy Capitalism as the universal cure for every ill. And of course, who cares what she says in posturing moral think pieces, how did she act in reality? Looking at who she surrounded herself with, I suspect that Rand was as unconsciously tribal as anyone else.
As to the issues of genetic differences in IQ and the like, the reality is that *no-one knows*. We *do know*, however, that people have inherently tribal prejudices and suffer from confirmation biases that will reinforce those prejudices. So my policy is to assume equality, as there is no compelling evidence to the contrary and at the very least this assumption will offset what are sure to be my own biases.

Anonymous said...

@db

Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ of 115 and get twenty percent of the Noble prizes in science. Even though ashkenazi and oriental jews go to tbe same schools i. Israel no oriental jew has wona Noble prize in science.

And there is a correllation between brain size and intlligence. East asians have larger brains than whites who havr larger brains than blacks.

Oh and whites do better than blacks on revwrse digit span and reaction time tests both of which are correlatef with lower Iq.

I could go on and on


Can you give one good reason to think that Australian aborigines are *really* just as smart as Ashkenazi jews ?

Anonymous said...

@db

First cousin marriages redice IQ 15 points. 80 percent of Pakistanis have first cousin marriages. Are you arguing that this hasnt reduced the pakistani IQ?

Anonymouse

Lloyd Flack said...

We don't know about racial differences in average intelligence but the claimed ones are suspiciously large. The are so large that I would need to thoroughly look at the methodology or have someone that I trust do this. And that means someone that I believe is willing to sacrifice dearly beloved ideology on the altar of curiousity.
After all we do not need differences in average intelligence to explain differences between populations in how well off they are.
And it is difficult to separatr genetic effects from those of early upbringing.

Lloyd Flack said...

Also some of the heritable differences could be epigenetic rather than genetic effects.

Daniel Barnes said...

Anonymous asks:
>Can you give one good reason to think that Australian aborigines are *really* just as smart as Ashkenazi jews ?

Let's put an Ashkenazi Jew with a "primitive" Aborigine, both naked, in the Australian Outback and see which one survives longest.

Which is another way of saying "intelligence" has got a lot of unspoken contextual and cultural assumptions baked into it as Any Fule Kno.

Daniel Barnes said...

Also pointless having a discussion about genetics without a discussion about expression.

gregnyquist said...

How do you not see what white interests are?

White people are not a homogeneous group. There exists an enormous amount of diversity of temperament, personality, ideological allegiances, etc. among white people. Out of all that disagreement, I'm not sure how you come up with anything that was specifically and exclusively a "white" interest. And indeed, despite the alt-right's presumed championship of these so-called white interests, nevertheless, most white people don't want anything to do with the alt-right. Nor is it just a radical leftist thing. The alt-right has been denounced by mainstream conservatives and, increasingly, by the so-called "alt-lite" (i.e., civic nationalists). The alt-right has responded in kind. They have branded conservatives and even civic nationalists as "cucks." Which leads to the rather ironic state of affairs wherein a movement allegedly brought about on behalf of white interests is made up of people who don't seem to like many actual white people.

If white people become the minority in this country and lose power to a coalition of the left and non-whites, things will get *very* ugly.

If true, how on earth is the alt-right going to do anything about this? If you want to stop the left, you need to build a coalition against it, and in a racially diverse country like America, that can't be done by alienating all your potential allies among both whites and non-whites.

I'm not saying you should be an alt-right fan boy, but at least understand that white identarianism is based on a self-preservation instinct. Its not crazy as you seem to suggest.

I don't think it's necessarily crazy, just deeply misguided. White identitarianism is not a path to self-preservation; rather it's a path to social isolation, which would seem to go against self-preservation.

Daniel Barnes said...

Anonymouse:
>First cousin marriages redice[sic] IQ 15 points. 80 percent of Pakistanis have first cousin marriages.

So now Anonymouse seems to have discovered that certain cultural practices can significantly affect IQ results in Pakistan, he will have to a accept that cultural practices may also be significantly affecting IQ results in the US and elsewhere...;-)

Lloyd Flack said...

Australian Aborigines were a small scattered isolated population in a continent that had little in the way of the resources required for an early civilization. A difference in intelligence is not necessary for them to have not developed civilization before they were conquered. Read Gunpowder, Germs and Steel by Jarred Diamond for explanations of what was needed to develop a civilization.

Anonymous said...

Lloyd -

How does that change the fact that groups have different IQs and this likely has a strong genetic component? It's not as if Aborigines have caught in the last three hundred years. In spite of the billions the Australia has spent on education and social programs they are still poor and have low IQs.

To take another example, there is genetic data on all the provinces in Latin America. The more European an province is (in other words less Native American and Africa) the higher its income and the better students do on standardized tests. Maybe there is a cultural explanation for this but Occam tells me there is a simpler explanation.

Anonymouse

Anonymous said...

I believe it was Arthur Jensen who said that the dwfault hypothesis is that what causes the differenced within groups is what most likely caused the differences between groups. Since intelligence is mostly genetic then differences between groups are most likely genetic.

From an evolutionary perspective its highly unlikely that all groups woind ip with the same IQ. The genes for btain devlopmemt have been identified and they vary from race to race

madmax said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madmax said...

Part 2

America has become a pan-European civilization (at least prior to 1965 and excepting the 10% African subpopulation which was partially hybridized which while still disruptive is better than having full Africans). Europeans exist within a similar range of cognitive abilities and sexual aesthetic. Europeans also have significant genetic relatedness; We are in essence an extended family. That's what races are. Euros also share so many cultural foundations the most important being Christianity which is a de facto ethno-religion (all religions are de facto ethno-religions). There is nothing crazy about fighting for a pan-European civilization that organizes itself around the general genetic infrastructure of what can be thought of as the white race. In fact, thats basically what it was organized around prior to the 1960s. America was founded as what was in fact an ethno-state. "White persons of good character." You've read those words haven't you? You have to know where they come from.

Most alr-righters understand that North America is different than Europe in this regard. Europe has evolved its tribalism over millennium and its proper that Europeans act to preserve their own European ethnicities (or do you think that Poland should become the next Brazil?) In North America we've become hybridized; ie "white Americans". If you can't see that African, Mestizo or Arabic incursions into a formerly European space doesn't represent potential danger, then I question the state of your amygdala. (I hope you get the reference. You should.)

"Which leads to the rather ironic state of affairs wherein a movement allegedly brought about on behalf of white interests is made up of people who don't seem to like many actual white people."

They don't like Leftists or mainstream Conservatives or mainstream libertarians. But then again those movements are losing power. And yet they think they can win over many of the male white liberals, especially as the left becomes an explicit anti-white movement. Or do you not see that about the left? And since they push a welfare state economics (which I don't like), they may be right. Many blue class white liberals may come to realize that the Left of the SJW's is hostile to their interests. Again, not crazy.

"If true, how on earth is the alt-right going to do anything about this? If you want to stop the left, you need to build a coalition against it, and in a racially diverse country like America, that can't be done by alienating all your potential allies among both whites and non-whites."

Their view is that the future is going to bring chaos and fracture. Couple that with young whites especially young white males growing up in a climate which despises and demonizes them (have you seen the recent Star Wars movies?) and you are going to see white identarianism explode in the coming decades. I don't see that as unrealistic. Do you deny that Leftism is heading towards some violent attack on white Conservatives (Conservative basically meaning anyone one inch to the right of the NeoCons)? Do you not think we are heading for civil breakdown and social fragmentation? Have you not been watching the Antifa phenomenon? The violence being directed towards right-wingers (even the moderate types) is a growing phenomenon. Hell, leftists tried to KILL Republican senators in broad daylight. And look at what happened to Rand Paul. Hardly a "far right wing" guy. I don't see how you think forecasting growing white identity movements is bizarre. Do you think Leftists are going to stop trying to tear down white historical statues?

madmax said...

Part 3

Look I would love to live in a limited government society that really did believe in the "sanctity of the individual". I'm still a Randian at heart. It would be so nice if that really was the ultimate solution to all our problems. But racial tribalism is a real human phenomenon. And whether for biological or philosophical reasons (or both), right now the entire world is tribal while whites are engaging in racial suicide being led on by a variety of intellectual movements that either stress universalist egalitarianism (the left), universalist liberal propositionalism (the NeoCons and mainstream right) or universalist individualism (the libertarians). This can't go on indefinitely. We're witnessing a paradigm shift.

"White identitarianism is not a path to self-preservation; rather it's a path to social isolation, which would seem to go against self-preservation."

The younger generations don't see it that way. I think you are stuck in the 80s and 90s; the last hurrah of white America.

Greg, as much as you think you are being edgy, challenging Rand and the libertarians at their weak points, the growing hereditarian and identarian movements would consider you barely better than the Cato Institute or Sean Hannity. I have differences with Richard Spencer and he does often give dumbed down speeches for public consumption (he does that on purpose). But listen to any of his podcasts and he comes across as very well read and reasonable in his cultural analysis. He recently destroyed Sargon of Akkad in a debate.

I really can't judge your intellectual prowess from your blog posts (although you seem smart enough). I'd have to hear you discuss these ideas with someone like Spencer or MacDonald, the TRS guys, Christofer Cantwell (there's an interview you should do), etc. But from what I have seen, you are still stuck in the multi-racial civic nationalist paradigm that everyone on the right currently accepts. In that way, you are not that different from the Randians that you dedicated *over a decade* to discrediting. Think about that.

madmax said...

Part 1

Replies to various comments.

"Where communists seek a world in which all individual aspirations are subordinated to communal goals they seek a world in which the communitarian aims or people are trivialized and individual goals are all that remains."

You haven't read Hoppe or at least you don't understand him. The reality of what the more traditionalist friendly Rothbardians argue for (which is what Hoppe represents) is the exact opposite of what you wrote. Your criticism of the property obsession with libertarians has some merit but is overstated. IMO, the Misesians are much better in that regard. They understand that there is more to humanity than property rights. But property rights is an indispensable means of organizing society and optimizing it. Re Rand, she was not better than Rothbard in total. She did stress certain things which I think Rothbard was weaker on (namely the influence of moral theory on political development) but she had none of Rothbard's intellectual curiosity. He was a true polymath. He was not perfect but who is. His thought provides a good base for expanding libertarian theory. Your criticisms strike me as petty and uninformed. Are you a leftist? Mainstream Right? You don't come across as a non-mainstream Right guy. What with all the race denial stuff and all... (And I am speaking as what I would call a racialist right wing libertarian; a designation that really doesn't exist yet.)

"As to the issues of genetic differences in IQ and the like, the reality is that *no-one knows*."

You're more ignorant about hereditarianism than you are about Hoppe. I don't know where you come off being so arrogant and righteous about this. The data and world experience is not on your side. Drive through any black or brown area. Or country. "No one knows"? Jesus Christ. Talk about putting ideology over reality. lol

"Let's put an Ashkenazi Jew with a "primitive" Aborigine, both naked, in the Australian Outback and see which one survives longest.""

Silly argument. We don't live naked in the Australian Outback. We now live in an industrial civilization that rewards cognitive skills. High IQ populations have demonstrated advantages in such a civilization. Look anywhere. My god. Arguments like these are made fun of in alt-right and hereditarian circles. There is a north / south IQ gradient, *everywhere*. Do you see no real world evidence of this?

"Read Gunpowder, Germs and Steel by Jarred Diamond for explanations of what was needed to develop a civilization."

Or you could read Rushton and Lynn, etc and about the Cold Weather Hypothesis and bypass Diamond's Cultural Marxism totally. (Not that there aren't interesting facts in that book. But Diamond is an environmentalist just like those Randians that you love so much. I thought we opposed such silly things...)

"There exists an enormous amount of diversity of temperament, personality, ideological allegiances, etc. among white people"

How does that affect white interests? Have you read the mountains of empirical data regarding this? Just take a city like NYC. If it were all white it would have basically no violent crime. For four and a half million white people! Tokyo levels there. Almost makes you think that Rothbard's private defense agency scheme could work. Throw in African and Mesp-American DNA and everything changes. Now you can't cross 96th street after dark. Compare New Orleans with Fukushima. Gun crime? Switzerland's got more guns and less crime. It also has no blacks. Get the point. Really Greg. I'm not trying to be a dick, but just understand that the hereditarians / HBDers can do to you what you did to the Randians. Yes, that bad. And you seem to be just as blissfully unaware as the O'ists.

Lloyd Flack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lloyd Flack said...

Anononymouse and Madmax, why are you trying to make race a focus of loyalty? I think, for different reasons, neither race nor political movement is a suitable object for feelings of loyalty and making them into such a focus is harmful to the broader society. Note that there is a difference between supporting a political movement and making it a focus of loyalty.
Some far more suitable objects of loyalty are nation, culture and way of life and even the human race as a whole. So long as my culture continues what difference does it make what the racial mix of its adherents is?

Daniel Barnes said...

I wrote:
>As to the issues of genetic differences in IQ and the like, the reality is that *no-one knows*."

madmax responded:
>You're more ignorant about hereditarianism than you are about Hoppe.

You do not seem to know who you are responding to. I wrote nothing about Hoppe?

I wrote:
>Let's put an Ashkenazi Jew with a "primitive" Aborigine, both naked, in the Australian Outback and see which one survives longest.

madmax responded:
>Silly argument. We don't live naked in the Australian Outback.

You do not seem to understand the discussion. I was responding to anonymouse's "Can you give one good reason to think that Australian aborigines are *really* just as smart as Ashkenazi jews ?"

I then gave one good reason, which obviously makes a wider point too.

As always, it seems the self-appointed members of the Master Race struggle with basic reading and comprehension...;-)

Lloyd Flack said...

And why should anyone expect the proportion of the variation between individuals within a race that is explained by heredity to be the same as the proportion of the variation between races explained by heredity?
To point out a couple of obvious things, the individual level variation will have a negligible effect on the variation between populations in their mean values. And the proportion of variation explained by heredity depends on how variable the environmental effects are. Increase environmental variation while keeping hereditary variation the same and you will decrease the proportion of variation explained by heredity.
The environmental differences between races are far from negligible and can explain a lot. The size of differences in racial means is poorly known despite your claims. Oh, they will exist but will they be large enough to matter?

Lloyd Flack said...

If there are negligible differences in intelligence between races and we believe that the differences are large then we will waste the potential of many people and damage social cohesion. If the differences are considerable and we treat them as negligible again there will be a waste of human potential but less than in the opposite case and there will be less damage to social cohesion.
Thus I think that for purposes of policy we need a stronger level of proof for differences between races than we would simply to satisfy our curiosity.

madmax said...

Regarding Ashkenazi intelligence,

Jews and Aborigines evolved in different areas which had different selection pressures. If true that the Aborigines would survive longest in the Outback it would prove only that Aborigines are better adapted to their environment. Jews obtained their high IQs most likely because they began assortive mating of the smart with the smart in more cognitively demanding Europe. (They also are European hybrids as all of today's Ashkenazis trace back to 4 Italian women dating from roughly 700 AD.) So if by intelligent you mean (among other things) "better able to prosper in a cognitively demanding society" then it's clear that Jews are more intelligent than Aborigines and this difference is largely down to genetics.

The easiest way to study this would be to do genetic testing of Aborigines to determine their percentage of European genes, measure their IQs, and see if there is a correlation. Of course, we know that such a study would never be done. Think of all those delicate leftist psychologies that would crush. In fact, a few years ago Charles Murray proposed such a study with African-Americans (who average 20% European ancestry) and no one of the "culture only" side of things would take part in the study. If you think about this, it's truly incredible. Imagine resolving a question of significant social concern (the black/white IQ gap) with a simple study, yet no one wants to do it or fund it. Imagine if you could resolve the question of whether raising the minimum wage increases unemployment - both right wing and left wing economists would do the study in a minute.

That's but one of many ways to respond to such a sily argument though. If anyone really thinks that aborigines are really as smart as Jews or North East Asians then your power of critical thinking is non-existent and you really have no business dealing with these subjects. In the end Leftism, ie egalitarianism, makes you stupid. Or stated another way, it prevents you from seeing the world as it is. And that could be very dangerous, especially when the subject is assessing dangers coming from your environment (and the presence of low IQ alien populations within your ancestral territory is certainly a danger). Incidentally, the amygdala threat response mechanism has been shown to be biologically different between leftists and conservatives. (I'm sure Greg knows this.) I would bet it factors heavily in the race and IQ debate.

You race and IQ deniers probably have damaged brains. And god only knows what the amygdala of an SJW looks like. lol

Anonymous said...

Lloyd. What are you talking about? Tens of millions of IQ or IQ equivent tests are given even year. They never give results inconsistent racial hereditarianidm. There are 40000 school ditticts in the US. Find one where blacks do as well as whites or even substantially above IQ 85.

Anonymouse

Gordon Burkowski said...

@ Anonymous:

What IQ do you need to correctly spell "equivalent" or "district"? And what exactly is "hereditarianidm"? Maybe you can find it in the same dictionary as "covfefe". I guess members of the master race have incorrectly inferred that they can do without a spellcheck.

p.s. The grammar's not so hot either.

Lloyd Flack said...

Be fair Gordon, anyone can make typos. There are much better things to criticize these two over.
For starters why the attempt to identify a nation with its racial make up? I think it has more to do with the culture and attendant values. I am in fact quite critical of the excesses of multi culturalism when it goes beyond necessary tollerance. While I am willing to accept that there might be differences in racial averages on mental attributes I am suspicious of the claims that have been made here. Those making the claims have too much to gain for me to trust them. The gain is mostly in self image.
And since I only deal with individuls of another race what matters is that I treat them fairly. Generalizations about race are irrelevant here and a foolish short cut.

Gordon Burkowski said...

@Lloyd:

Okay, anyone can make typos. But I hold people who implicitly claim superiority by reason of birth and skin colour to a higher standard.

Yes, there is a lot more to criticise, but why bother? The stuff being trotted out here doesn't exactly feel like it comes from learned journals subject to a peer review.

It would be more interesting if these people stopped hiding behind the statistics and stated clearly what laws or social objectives they're advocating. I sense that there is something being hidden here. And I guess everyone knows what it is. Thank heaven for the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lloyd Flack said...

I agree on what is being hidden. I asked about it when I asked why they were making biological race such a major aspect of their identity.

gregnyquist said...

Do you deny that Leftism is heading towards some violent attack on white Conservatives (Conservative basically meaning anyone one inch to the right of the NeoCons)?

Yes, I do deny it. The best measurable predictor of ideological outlook is personality. Now it just so happens that the personality type that is predisposed to leftist ideology is low in conscientiousness (one of the Big Five Personality traits) and weak in authority and loyalty (from the Moral Foundations Theory). To be effective at violence requires discipline, submission to authority, and recognition and respect for hierarchical structures. Generally speaking, people on the left don't have personality types that make for good warriors. Pareto would call them foxes rather than lions. Sure, they can engage in desultory violence if they have over-whelming numbers, or they're attacking women or old men, or engaging in a sneak attack with a bike lock. The whole point of Antifa and so-called left-wing violence is to try to provoke the right into committing atrocities in order to garner public support for laws aimed at suppressing the right.

How does [diversity among white people] affect white interests?

For the very simple reason that you can't have any common interests among people who think very differently. You can talk about "white interests" all you like, but most white people don't think in those terms. Their "whiteness" is more often regarded as an adventitious characteristic, something they really don't think much about. People tend to see the world through the prism of their personalities, and not all people, and certainly not all white people, have the same personality. It's the primary reason why it can be so difficult to get people to change their minds about their ideological convictions. One of the chief fallacies of ideologues is the tacit assumption that at bottom all reasonably intelligent people would accept the idealogue's political ideals if you could only expose them all to the right ideas, the right arguments, the right experiences, etc. etc. But that's not true in the least. Differences in ideology are at least partially based in hard-wired (i.e., genetic) differences in personality. That's why this notion that any specific ideology can become predominant evinces a failure to appreciate the diversity of human nature.

Daniel Barnes said...

Madmax's premises seem to boil down to:

1) IQ, as currently measured, is the only thing that matters.
2) It is also intractably fixed along racial lines.

For the sake of argument, let's assume both these premises are true.
Let's hear what specific social policies madmax proposes as a result. madmax, over to you.

gregnyquist said...

There is nothing crazy about fighting for a pan-European civilization that organizes itself around the general genetic infrastructure of what can be thought of as the white race.

The alt-right wishes for these so-called white ethno-states. Whether crazy or not, it's definitely problematic. In the first place, there's the insurmountable problem of forming the political will to do it. Non-Hispanic whites make up only 63% of the U.S. population. To create an ethnostate would require changing the constitution, but even if, per impossible, you could convince every white person in the country to support such a change, that would not be enough to create majorities in Congress and the States to amend the constitution.

Nor can you create your ethnostate through violence. The major forces of organized force in America, the police, the national guard, and the U.S. military, are all racially integrated. Those organizations are never going to support the alt-right.

What about social breakdown? Well, possibly, but be very careful what you wish for. If an ethnostate arose out of social collapse in America, there's no guarantee it would be a white ethnostate. More likely it would be a Chinese ethnostate. Because if America collapsed then China would become the world's leading power, and if the American continent was engulfed in racial warfare, China would likely intervene to protect Chinese nationals.

Just take a city like NYC. If it were all white it would have basically no violent crime.

The problem here is the cure you're proposing for NYC is worse than the disease. Even if, per impossible, you could get the political will to remove all non-whites from NYC, moving so many people against their will would almost certainly lead to enormous atrocities. You present Poland as an ideal ethnostate, but on conventional alt-right standards, Poland would not qualify as an ethnostate before 1939 because of its Jewish population. Jews, according to Richard Spencer, don't qualify as white people. So if the Nazis hadn't murdered most of the Jews in Poland, Poland would not today be regarded by the alt-right as a white ethnostate. In short, Poland's status as an ethnostate rests on mass murder.

Forcibly moving large populations rarely ends well. Not all the Nazis wanted the Final Solution for the Jews. Some Nazis wanted to move the Jews to Palestine, or even to Madagascar. But since it turned out to be easier to kill the Jews than to move them to another country, that's what the Nazis wound up doing. The ethnostate, like the Communist state, is a utopian ideal which, when put in practice, inevitably leads to atrocities. To create the political will to forcibly move a people, you would have to drum up hatred for that people to a fever pitch. Combine this with the fact that most people don't be like being forcibly removed and will often fight to remain, and you have all the elements for genocide/ethic cleansing.

Lloyd Flack said...

And how much of identity politics on the part of blacks etc. is a defensive reaction against discrimination? Not all of it but, I venture, much of it. Yes I am opposed to the posturing by the left on this but they do have a point. There is unjustified discrimination and it has to be opposed without seeing more discrimination than is actually there. That is, do not make opposition to discrimination central to your self image.

Anonymous said...

It should be noted that whether or not Spencer "won" the debate with Sargon seems to depend on how invested in the alt-right/white supremacy ideology the person making the judgement is. Some say Spencer was simply able to verbally side-step Sargon - not actually making a convincing case for the rightness of his cause, but instead deflecting many of the issues.

Xtra Laj said...

I think too many people who believe in hereditarianism want to draw too many consequences that clearly do not follow. A lot of what you think follows from the consequences or hereditarianism says more about your personality than the objective consequences of hereditarianism as those are features of the world we live in already if true.

Gordon Burkowski said...

"Let's hear what specific social policies madmax proposes as a result. madmax, over to you."

The least surprising result in the world: madmax did not answer. Because he could not answer. There are maybe 150 million Americans out there that he obviously doesn't like. And no matter how much junk science he trots out, those 150 million Americans aren't going to go away.

That's reality. Try dealing with it.