The emerging left-/globalist consensus on race

"Just because genomics research threatens to expose our religion of lies, does not mean we need to reassess our basic ideology."

Previously Shirley Tilghman, now The Economist senses the coming shift in the topography of debate and warns the troops to be ready:
Genomics may reveal that humans really are brothers and sisters under the skin. The species is young, so there has been little time for differences to evolve. Politically, that would be good news. It may turn out, however, that some differences both between and within groups are quite marked. If those differences are in sensitive traits like personality or intelligence, real trouble could ensue.

People must be prepared for this possibility, and ready to resist the excesses of racialism, nationalism and eugenics that some are bound to propose in response. That will not be easy. The liberal answer is to respect people as individuals, regardless of the genetic hand that they have been dealt. Genetic knowledge, however awkward, does not change that.

19 comments:

plordis said...

Well but you see, you don't yourself have an answer for "What happens when everybody knows?".

We'll see, I guess, whether a veneer of extra-effort ideology can hold the ugliness. Or else, maybe we'll all Turn a Corner and Grow as Humans and see each other as the Brothers and Sisters that we Are. Come to see IQ as 'just a number'. It could happen, but resources will be growing thin, life possibly cheaper (maybe it's the current hot weather, & oil spill speaking), and give people confidence in their prejudices (I speak as a xenophobe and racist myself), and I think there's room for ugliness.

I think for Europe and the USA it's too late to start restricting immigration to certain countries, we now have enough population from everywhere that it would be just too politically ugly to do so. "Yes you Africans and Arabs, you're undesirable." Maybe by education + money. Still. I dunno. Our background in Christianity, and thinking of ourselves as moral, is going to seriously tie our hands. Is that a good thing? If White dilution is inevitable, maybe it's better that it happen smoothly and leave us looking virtuous for it (as in, please don't hurt us!)

I've seen someone elsewhere say, "Do nothing, just get rid of Affirmative Action and go on as before." I guess that's an answer - just, society will stratify more, there'll be more Black resentment (and maybe White resentment, up, toward Jews. Nah, I doubt it.) With open and expressed difference people will separate more. Everyone's got too much to lose for anything as crude as a civil war but, I do think this open knowledge will make relations uglier.

All the 'HBD' sites; you don't see much speculation as to how it'll play out, or how, realistically, to cope with the full disclosure. Is it that unimaginable, impossible to think a realistic (and if at all possible, happy) way through?

Silver said...

Previously Shirley Tilghman, now The Economist senses the coming shift in the topography of debate and warns the troops to be ready:

I appreciate that you're choosing your tone so as to rally your troops ("Observe: more lies! Victory is surely ours!"), but you didn't seriously expect anything else, did you?

"Shirley Tilghman" is just a phase that will have to passed through. I think you can expect that the eventual shape of the opposition to look something like that the line I (very loosely, for now) have taken.

I mention this not because I'm particularly interested in whatever reaction you had, but because I think you risk miring your side in the same attitude that has held it back for decades.

Consider the two most recently published articles (at this time) at OO by Johnson and Kurtagic. Both are eminently reasonable and, more importantly, uncharacteristically practical. How is that it has taken fifty years (at least) for the focus to shift to the activist strain?

As I've argued, the reason is your unfounded confidence that your compatriots see and feel what you're seeing and feeling only they, for whatever reason, suppress it, and that it's only necessary to highlight the contradictions in (the double standards, hypocrisy etc) or the implications of ("collapse" etc) the worldview that emerges from that suppression to jar them out of it. But that hasn't happened, has it? Is it now finally dawning on you that it'll never happen?

Fine, n/a, you feel a sense of racial revulsion towards others and a sense of racial 'infeeling' with your own so intense that no human cost is too high to incur in the course of securing a racial future. But unless you accept that ultimately all it is is a feeling -- ie completely subjective -- you're going to continue to create the impression that to take your own race's side in explicitly racial terms means to feel that sense of supreme loathing, or it means your infeeling is so intense that strident, dogmatically anti-liberal nationalism is the only viable political option. Be it due to "brainwashing," be it due to natural temperament, neither is at all attractive to most people; and the tragedy of it is that, in reality, racialism does not necessarily imply either. (If it did I wouldn't be able to write what I have.)

Silver said...

plordis,

Well but you see, you don't yourself have an answer for "What happens when everybody knows?"

You mean after the dust settles after the initial fascination? I see it this way: virtually every policy that is currently negatively affected by blank slatism, from educational outcomes, to affirmative action, to crime, to immigration, and so on, can be ameliorated by the injection of some biological realism. For example, education: terminate the fascination with the "gap"; stream; teach practical, technical skills; urge self-discovery on the basis of empirical likelihoods and self-esteem on the basis of their realization. Really, it's just the restoration of common sense, now fortified by empirical proof.

The bigger question on people's minds will be, when you get down to it, "Is the world still beautiful?" To hear the WN tell it, it's anything but. That's why you so often encounter this tone of irritation and desperation in hbd circles, as interlocutors angle for (what they imagine is) position.

Based on that I have to say that, so far, the uglifiers seem to be winning. But participants in these discussions haven't been exposed to alternative views that only question the uglifiers' interpretations of the facts (rather than the facts themselves), and, as someone perfectly at ease with those facts, I'm very curious to how many adherents the beautifiers can snatch. If we can snatch the hard cases, I am confident we can corral the uninitiated. (That picture is admittedly complicated by the European scene, where something a little sterner is both "more possible" and more justified. "Regionalism" or "continentalism" is the recipe resolving that complication.)

Anonymous said...

Unabiding hatred, according to Gottfried it work for Eastern European Jews in America. Better ugliness than sanctimonious mendacity. Try pitching your sob story to the ADL. No doubt it will get a big laugh.

n/a said...

Silver,

"but you didn't seriously expect anything else, did you?"

In one sense, I'm not surprised: it's always been about ideology (or money/status/ethnic interests) for them and non-ideological science was never on their side. But the brazenness with which they are looking to switch from justifying their regime with "science proves race does not exist" to "races may differ genetically in IQ and personality but we can't let scientific facts inform public policy -- we must redouble our commitment to the present system" is something to behold.

And, no, I don't believe we will win through rational argument. What's preventing whites from acting in their own racial interests is moral conditioning and the prevailing schedule of individual incentives/disincentives. The good news is these have been different in the past and will be different in the future. The Economist sees that "scientific" arguments for the irrelevance of race may soon become risible in the eyes of the general public, but probably correctly believes this blow is nonfatal. Should the public begin to laugh at their "moral" arguments, however, the shift will not be so easily sidestepped.

"I think you can expect that the eventual shape of the opposition to look something like that the line I (very loosely, for now) have taken."

Don't see it. If they did (and if I'm understanding your position correctly), I would no longer consider them opposition. Non-Northern Europeans would probably be psychically healthier living in monoethnic societies of their, but one will never convince them on that basis to separate of their own volition and take the hit in material prosperity it would entail. Nor can I see how irrefutable evidence that racial differences in productivity have a genetic component will do anything to motivate them. It's going to be entirely up to whites to defend their own interests (which is not to say diplomacy will play no role).



plordis,

"Our background in Christianity, and thinking of ourselves as moral, is going to seriously tie our hands."

In a different era, Christianity was used to justify slavery. Nor did Christian morality prevent the reconquest of Iberia or Jerulasem. There's nothing permanent or inevitable about the anti-white morality presently ascendant among whites. It was brought about through the concerted and sustained efforts of interested parties, and I doubt it will hold up too much longer.

"Is it that unimaginable, impossible to think a realistic (and if at all possible, happy) way through?"

It's certainly possible for separation to happen peacefully.

Blumstein said...

The Economist also ran an article by Geoffrey Miller late last year entitled 'The Looming Crisis in Human Genetics'. It discussed the same issues.

Her point is essentially the same as that made by Pinker in 'The Blank Slate' isn't it? That even if traits are genetic it doesn't really change how you treat people.

Nonetheless, it might help inform the arguments about 'achievement gaps' and why crime rates amongst groups differ. And who knows, maybe some countries will think twice about population replacement from Africa?

n/a said...

Crossposting part of a reply to a different discussion that's somewhat relevant here:

"I want a fundamental strategy shift for race realists from hoping for the decline of our civilization in order to return to traditional ideas of race to a strategy of relying on scientific progress to prove racial differences, such that elites can carefully consider the implications"

"Elites" are pursuing their own narrow (financial/political/ethnic) interests, and depending on which "elite" we're talking about, the long-term implications of their policies are either irrelevant to them or part of the desired end (if not the entire point). Informing them that non-whites are not going to magically become like whites will not bring about any sudden epiphanies or 180s in policy. The final two paragraphs of this Economist article illustrate how effortlessly elite opinion makers intend to disregard any "awkward" scientific results.

The fundamental shift we need is in morality. White elites pursuing personal gain at the expense of the long-term survival prospects of whites need to be shamed and punished, and non-white elites need to be viewed as the outgroup members they are.


"brushing off mixing as a matter for evolution to sort out."

There's nothing "natural" about the circumstances under which mixing is now occurring. Our present immigration system represents humans taking a hand in evolution every bit as large as (probably much larger than) a state-mandated eugenics program would represent -- nevermind mere immigration restriction. Affirmative action, media indoctrination, federally-enforced school desegregation and bussing, anti-discrimination laws in housing and employment -- these too actively serve to increase mixing. Furthermore, the American government redistributes the resources of whites to subsidize reproduction of non-whites (in the form of free or subsidized medical care, schooling, tax credits, home loans, etc.), further actively meddling in human evolution.

I find the idea that it is somehow less moral to restrict gene flow to levels more in keeping with those found throughout almost the entirety of our evolutionary history bizarre. It seems to me nothing could be more moral than putting an end to our present short-sighted recklessness.

Blumstein said...

Also, be sure to check out First Advisor's absolute schooling of the 'race is a social construct' commentator 'Scribe10' in the comments section.

Eman said...

All I know is that Jews are genetically degenerate and ugly - physically, mentally, morally, intellectually, and spiritually - and they should be stopped before they destroy The West.

Anonymous said...

n/a said...

Crossposting part of a reply to a different discussion that's somewhat relevant here:

"I want a fundamental strategy shift for race realists from hoping for the decline of our civilization in order to return to traditional ideas of race to a strategy of relying on scientific progress to prove racial differences, such that elites can carefully consider the implications"

"Elites" are pursuing their own narrow (financial/political/ethnic) interests, and depending on which "elite" we're talking about, the long-term implications of their policies are either irrelevant to them or part of the desired end (if not the entire point). Informing them that non-whites are not going to magically become like whites will not bring about any sudden epiphanies or 180s in policy. The final two paragraphs of this Economist article illustrate how effortlessly elite opinion makers intend to disregard any "awkward" scientific results.


This comment should be on your front page for all to see, it's a great statement on the matter.

Silver said...

Don't see it. If they did (and if I'm understanding your position correctly), I would no longer consider them opposition.

I'd like to believe that. But that was a telling sneer at "moral" arguments, very much in the Instaurationist (reader, at least) tradition in which no moral arguments can apply. But whatever. You're one man and I'm one man and time alone will tell where along the continuum of retribution--restoration--rearrangement the dust finally settles.

Nor can I see how irrefutable evidence that racial differences in productivity have a genetic component will do anything to motivate them. It's going to be entirely up to whites to defend their own interests (which is not to say diplomacy will play no role).

See, my comments here presupposed this widespread understanding of the racial predicament and a consequent motivation to act. (And my comments elsewhere intend to speed it.) The opposition (including, importantly, white opposition) will not be able to bullshit. It'll be forced to say more or less what I'm saying: that yes, now that's it's apparent that the social gains for which the multiracial project was first undertaken will not cover the ultimate racial cost a massive social restructuring will have to be undertaken, and that the basis for that restructuring is bounded by familiar moral dimensions (in more concrete terms, with respect to issues like timetabling, inclusion, compensation etc). (For those not following, all this in contradistinction to "white makes right.")

Lastly, please, when have you ever really attempted to make a case to racial others? There are large (and growing) numbers of highly acculturated (albeit perhaps not by traditional standards) of racial others, particulalry quasi-whites/off-whites who have an obvious interest in actions that would offset American decline or cultural transformation/disintegration. You gain nothing by delivering them to the opposition from the get-go by characterizing them as the force of destruction personified.

n/a said...

"The opposition (including, importantly, white opposition) will not be able to bullshit. It'll be forced to say more or less what I'm saying: that yes, now that's it's apparent that the social gains for which the multiracial project was first undertaken will not cover the ultimate racial cost"

What is to stop them from using innate racial differences in ability to justify naked racial communism?

And what "racial cost"? According to the worldview promoted by the opposition, the dispossession of whites is pure benefit and any consideration of the collective interests of whites is the height of immorality. Yes, I sneer at this ad hoc leftist morality that calls for the unilateral hobbling (and ultimately suicide) of whites, and until this conditioning is overcome, nothing will change -- regardless of the science (which was never the real issue for them to begin with).

Silver said...

What is to stop them from using innate racial differences in ability to justify naked racial communism?

People (whites) not buying it.

And what "racial cost"? According to the worldview promoted by the opposition, the dispossession of whites is pure benefit and any consideration of the collective interests of whites is the height of immorality.

Do they actually say that, though? I've never heard a leftie actually state that "the dispossession of whites" per se is pure benefit. That dispossession seems mostly a side effect -- one worth tolerating -- of their worldview and their policies.

The average white goes along with it partly because of "brainwashing" and partly (mostly, imo) because his experience of racial others is often positive (at least as often as it is negative), so he's in no mood to turn on people, and because of a desire to promote "let's-all-get-alongism" probably often born from an appraisal of the difficulties presented by the alternative courses of action (he's got a career, a house, he's "no nazi" etc). He's not weighing the "racial cost." But with the tide rising against him it's reasonable to think he'll start to, and as I said, what I've outlined presupposes that he does start to.

Yes, I sneer at this ad hoc leftist morality that calls for the unilateral hobbling (and ultimately suicide) of whites, and until this conditioning is overcome, nothing will change

Two points in response to your attitude here.

Firstly, every politically active person's morality is ad hoc. You're as much a consequentialist as they are. And so am I. Only while you've been sneering they've been painting attractive vistas and look at the result. (On this point, again, racial feelings can be surmounted and given what the opposition has framed as the alternative there's no question a white who surmounts them experiences a sense of moral attainment. That Utah ex-conservative Alan Wall wrote about at vdare a few months back who married a Mexican and is now gaga over amnesty is a good (if extreme -- marriage) example of what I mean.)

Secondly, there's nothing unilaterally hobbling about my position. Quite simply, we either mulitlaterally hobble each other or we multilaterally massacre each other. I know where I stand. It's not exactly much to boast of, but when you compare it to the attitude of some of the people on your side ("I'd like to drop daisycutters on them filthy bastards!!") it's clearly an important difference.

Christoph Dollis said...

Her "basic ideology" is to acknowledge whatever genetic research proves, and then judge and respect people as individuals.

What's wrong with that?

n/a said...

Christoph,

If you're referring to Shirley Tilghman, notice that she is addressing a grievance studies department organized around a collective racial identity. Nor do I recall ever hearing about her agitating for race-blind admissions. Individualism (or collective self-criticism) is only required of whites.

If you're referring to the Economist piece, let's look at some other content from that outlet and see how consistent it is.

Banning ethnic studies: The law bars classes that "Promote the overthrow of the United States government; Promote resentment toward a race or class of people; Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," or "Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." Obviously there are no classes in the Tucson curriculum advocating the overthrow of the government, and the implication that there might be is either a door-wedge for some sort of politically-motivated prosecution, or just a bit of "incindiary rhetoric". The bit about barring instruction that "advocates" "ethnic solidarity", however, raises some serious problems. How does Mr Horne think classes on the civil-rights movement should be taught?

Hysterical nativism; A conservative border state is at risk of becoming a police state: “Illegal is not a race; it is a crime,” Mr Pearce likes to retort. And many Arizonans agree with him. [. . .] Arizona’s Latinos, by contrast, have not mobilised politically. [. . .] During the 1990s attempts to turn back illegals at the border complied with voter initiatives against undocumented immigrants in California motivated Latinos there to become a political force which Republicans fear to cross. Arizona, however, may still be a generation behind.

Nonetheless, the Republicans are playing with fire. The entire country is now watching. Roger Mahony is archbishop of America’s largest, and very Hispanic, archdiocese, Los Angeles, and will soon be succeeded by a Latino. He calls Mr Pearce’s bill “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigrant law” and wonders whether Arizonans are “now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques”.


The backlash begins; A new state law has galvanised Latinos nationwide, and others too: ANTONIO GONZALEZ is, ironically enough, delighted with Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. He is president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP), which works to mobilise American Latinos as a political force. Its motto is su voto es su voz, your vote is your voice. The Latino movement usually grows by spurts in response to xenophobic overreactions by conservative America, and the Arizona law may be the biggest overreaction yet, according to Mr Gonzalez. [. . .] In the 1990s a similar backlash occurred in response to a Californian law, Proposition 187, approved by ballot in 1994 but blocked by the courts before it could go into effect. Supported by Pete Wilson, the Republican governor at the time, its objective was to keep illegal immigrants, most of whom were and are Hispanic, from using public services such as education and health care, and like the Arizona law, it required police to check up on suspects’ immigration status. Instead, 187 galvanised Latinos, who registered to vote in record numbers and changed the politics of California permanently. Even Republicans now fear alienating them.

Ethnic solidarity for Hispanics: good. Non-racial advocacy of immigration enforcement: xenophobic overreaction. I'm not seeing a principled defense of individualism here.

n/a said...

The Economist's public ideology: Higher levels of migration are likely to accompany higher levels of globalisation in general: if one believes that more trade, more exchanges of technology, more flows of capital and so on are broadly beneficial, then perhaps one is also likely to see the benefits of higher levels of human migration outweighing the costs. [. . .] It seems to me that the most important consideration is that migration is a very useful means of spreading some benefits of globalisation to poorer people. Have we passed the optimal level of migration from the point of view of the world's poor? The answer in this case is no. You see that in transfers of money, by migrants, from rich countries to poorer ones. The $300 billion sent as remittances in 2008 was probably an underestimate, and represents a useful flow of capital to parts of the world where poverty continues to blight lives. For the migrants themselves, some 200m people, many of them poorer, migration brings substantial benefits that are usually ignored by analysts looking at the impact of migration on host countries. At some point, of course, the interests of development should not be allowed to triumph over the interest of the rich—but is it evident we have reached that point yet?

Some individuals are more equal than others. Of course, Economist types don't actually see themselves taking a hit from immigration. Quite the contrary. The "rich" whose interests are going to have to take a back seat are the non-"elites" of the West: I'm completely on board with elite opinion here. I think it's an atrocious law. [. . .] One reason that elites think differently about this subject is that they experience it differently. For us, skilled immigration is great because it means we can swap ideas with brainy foreigners, and unskilled immigration is great because we get ethnic food and cheap child care. Less-educated people, by contrast, fear that immigrants will steal their jobs. Economists vigorously dispute whether immigrants drag down the wages of the native-born, and if so, how much. But to the man in the street, it seems intuitively obvious that they do.

Christoph said...

Yes, the Economist is left wing. I never doubted that.

But what she said, the part you blockquoted, was reasonable.

Anonymous said...

What do you think of nooffensebut's latest replies? He continues to argue that scientific findings will modify elite opinion and that white interests are too parochial.

Based on his answer, I'm guessing he's probably married to an Asian.

Blogger said...

If you need your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (even if they're dating somebody else now) you got to watch this video
right away...

(VIDEO) Get your ex back with TEXT messages?