Everyone so often I like to believe I’ve uncovered a little racialist nugget. Being so obvious in hindsight, they don’t always appear to amount to much at first glance, but they’re valuable enough that their absence in standard racialist discourse can be thought significant. An example would be the statement that neither one’s racial constitution nor one’s racial passion mean that one has any special insight into racial issues, nor do constitution and passion confer special value to those insights. That seems obvious and unremarkable, yet don’t most WNs act on the assumption that their whiteness and their passion for whiteness somehow endow them with special qualities? If the world’s to be changed it’s to be changed by ideas, but those ideas don’t have to originate in whiteness or even racial passion in order to be effective. That’s to say, William Pierce was far whiter and far more ferociously racially passionate than me, but that doesn’t mean his ideas were necessarily any better than mine, nor his insights any more insightful. Now, his ideas may been better, his insights may have been more insightful, but if so it wasn’t for the fact that he was whiter or more passionate. That’s just simple logic.
The above isn’t the point of this post however. This little preface is intended to go some way to justifying the unabashedly pompous and pretentious title I’ve given the post, ie comparing what it contains to Pascal’s famous “wager” (one never really “refuted” to the degree atheists love to claim). The “wager” goes a little something like this:
Whether heredity is true can never be known. Consciously or not, all of us act on either the assumption that heredity is true or that it is false. The social costs incurred by acting on the assumption that heredity is true are outweighed by acting on the assumption that heredity is false, whether or not heredity is in fact true. If heredity is true, acting on the assumption that it is true is good. If heredity is false, acting on the assumption that it is true is less bad than heredity being true and acting on the assumption that it is false. Choose, then, to act on the assumption that heredity is true, even if you do believe it is false.
What is accomplished by taking up this “wager”? If heredity is true, and we act as though we believe heredity is true, we stand to benefit. More importantly, it grants egalitarians/environmentalists the privilege to believe heredity is false while still acting as though it were true — they can think it’s ghastly but support hereditarianism as a form of social insurance.
The same “wager” can be made for diversity. But diversity is so obviously a debilitating weakness, a cause of endless friction and anomie, that I think it more profitable to assault directly. After all, society has been engineered on the basis of diversity being a strength, so re-engineering it should take place on the basis that, the best of intentions aside, it is not a strength at all.
9 responses so far ↓
White Preservationist // June 27, 2009 at 6:08 am
Very interesting post.
“But diversity is so obviously a debilitating weakness, a cause of endless friction and anomie, that I think it more profitable to assault directly.”
Being a racialist and ethnic/racial separatist I certainly agree with you that too much racial diversity is a weakness…however, a certain amount of diversity is a very good thing in that it is challenging/dynamic and thus keeps things from stagnating too much due to the constant friction that diversity causes (friction = heat, and heat causes evolution to quicken). If there is no competition or challenges to be had, all things tend to degenerate/stagnate under those very easy conditions and thus become easily wiped out later on by stronger foes or even just subsumed by them. Think about some of those Pacific Islander peoples who so often led lives of extreme ease and even luxury….plenty of food and sunshine always around, not much inter-societal conflict (very ethnically homogeneous), everyone always taking it easy (they were often corpulent and lazy and decadent) – then eventually a stronger group of humans comes along and easily wipes them out because they are so weak due to their having degenerated under conditions of ease and thus can offer little resistance to a superior, more dynamic foe.
I am reminded of a quote from a book on enviromental issues that I recently finished, a quote dealing with diversity as it relates to science/evolution; the quote reads: “Science has given us many doubts, but it has given us at least one certainty: the trend of evolution is to elaborate and diversify the biota.” (from A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC by A. Leopold)
That quote is certainly true – for instance, we wouldn’t want one kind of wheat or corn or apples or another crop to be planted in every country all over the world (global monocropping) because then a plant disease would evolve that could subsequently wipe them all out quite easily. Diversity and the constant evolutionary tweaking of plant strains keeps the specific species immune to the constantly evolving threats to its existence. In this sense diversity (many strains/subgroups/subspecies) helps to build the immunity up of a particular macrospecies (whether plant, animal, or human), while extreme uniformity has the opposite result. In human terms, just look at how sickly/ugly/depraved Ashenazi Jews are as well as other very genetically inbred groups tend to be whilst noting the intelligence, healthiness, and general attractiveness (hybrid vigor) of the children who result from the mixing of all the various White ethnic groups which inhabit the USA.
America has plenty of WHITE DIVERSITY already…just some random examples: we have the Whitest Nords living in proximity with very Southern Meds who are more Arabish than White, and they sometimes breed. We have Slavs living alongside WASPs, and they sometimes breed too. We have the black-haired Irish breeding with the flaxen-haired Germans, the French mixing with Finns, Greeks banging the Scottish and making babies, and so on and so forth. The amount of WHITE DIVERSITY in the USA is already pretty incredible, all kinds of the weirdest White couple combinations you could ever think of. We already have plenty of WHITE DIVERSITY here in the USA, and that’s a good thing – it’s perfectly fine with me. I just don’t want all of this non-White diversity forced upon me or my country – I don’t want too much non-White genetic intrusion in to the White gene pool. The White West for the Whites, Asia for the Asians, Middle East for the Arabs, Africa for the Africans – when the various races inhabit the same geographic area, they obviously tend to start mixing…thus they should be kept as geographically separate as possible, separate but equal. All of the major races should be kept geographically separate in order to prevent too much race mixing, while intra-racial diversity and various levels of intra-racial mixing should be allowed within the limits of the overall race as long as each distinct subgroup remains preserved long-term.
accidentaldissent // June 27, 2009 at 10:27 am
WP,
I thought it’d clear I was referring to local diversity, or to local mass diversity, the condition that prevails in cities all across the west today. That’s the context in which social friction from diversity is felt. No one would feel “friction” from the existence of Indians in India or Africans in Africa, ie different people living thousands of miles away.
It’s contradictory for you to claim to be a proponent of nordic preservation while simultaneously celebrating the condition of local white diversity, particularly since you yourself realize that that white diversity diminishes and risks submerging the (sub)race you wish to preserve.
In the separation scenario I propose, you could have the best of all worlds: nordic/ish preservation, white diveristy, and, in a confederation of racially autonomous states, a condition of “competitive friction” between the peoples of those zones. Of course, that’s one possibility among many and it needn’t take place that precisely that way. Whatever the basis or extent of our disagreements, those of us willing to engage in these discussions share the understanding that the present arrangement is to some degree suboptimal and we demand a better arrangement, a more “human” (and humane) arrangement. And the beauty of talking openly and non-hatefully about these issues is that solutions are mere willpower away.
statsquatch // June 27, 2009 at 11:11 am
“Whether heredity is true can never be known.”
Why not? We know a lot of things are heritable.
accidentaldissent // June 27, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Atheists “know” God does not (cannot) exist. Do you think that debate is going to be settled any time soon?
statsquatch // June 27, 2009 at 11:43 pm
All I need to believe that heredity is “true” for IQ, that is that it explains part of the variation between populations, is that there is one gene (e.g., SNP, CNV) etc. that is related to intelligence and varies between populations. This seems easier than proving anything about the almighty.
I am more interested to know what I should do if I thinks heredity is true?
accidentaldissent // June 28, 2009 at 5:28 am
Stats, you say heredity is easy to prove. I agree. But environmentalists don’t. No matter how strong proof you offer them. But this is not about proving anything. It’s about offering a way to side-step the entire debate.
I am more interested to know what I should do if I thinks heredity is true?
Can you think of some things that you would not do if you believed heredity was true?
Dasein // June 28, 2009 at 6:14 am
Statsquatch, a true believer in environmentalism is just going to say that the variation is only significant when combined with a particular epigenetic change that has not yet been found.
Dasein // June 28, 2009 at 6:18 am
I think the strongest evidence to date for a heritable component to the Black-White IQ gap is the regression towards the racial mean. I haven’t seen any convincing alternative explanation for that observation. That’s about as good as it’s going to get, IMO. If people can dismiss that, they will also ignore any difference in allele frequencies.
statsquatch // June 28, 2009 at 10:59 am
Dasein, regression to the mean can be explained by stereotype threat or pigeon hole menace or the syphilis experiments at Area 51.
Most environmentalists will not admit they were wrong but some will slowly change their minds. The NYT is lauding this Nisbett character as the second coming of Steven Jay Gould even though Nisbett’s views are much closer to Jensen’s than Gould’s. I haven’t read his book but from an old paper it appears that Nisbett holds that IQ tests measures intelligence accurately in all populations, IQ is partially heritable within populations, and it has predictive validity. He just says that the B/W difference is 0% genentic. So he has to explain a one SD B/W difference in a trait that is 40-80 heritable within populations. If you add a few differentially distributed alleles to this mix then how long can this argument hold out?
Anyway, I have held the hereditarian position for a few years and my behavior has not changed a bit. I do have some doubts about the robustness of a multicultural democracy, however.