After WWII, psychologists and anthropologists decided to give the benefit of doubt to the culturist “racial inequality is caused by unequal conditions, and racism, and human intellect is a blank slate that is equal in all racial groups” hypothesis. However, as the decades have worn on, what originally was the ‘benefit of doubt’ has evolved into full-fledged totalitarian dogma.
The reason why this dogma has become so persistent is that influential thinkers have hitherto tended to think that it was a necessary white lie in order to prevent stuff like Nazism. (Functionally speaking, would contend that hardly any evolutionary anthropologists or psychologists actually believe in this dogma; I consider its falsity to be an open secret in 2016.)
The problem with this dogma is that its proponents wage an ever-intensifying war on “white racism” because their dogma is not bearing its promised fruits—namely, equal outcomes for people of all races. As it stands, there are countless legal initiatives which penalize people who are not “of color”. University admittance quotas, job quotas—et cetera. If you become perceptive to it (and most aren’t, because it’s socially disadvantageous to open your eyes up to it), there exists today a dizzying array of double standards, both legal and cultural, that exist between (to keep the discussion simple) whites and blacks. If you are white exceptionally talented, wealthy, beautiful—et cetera—then you won’t be penalized too harshly by Antiracism. But if you’re not any of those things—and if you don’t benefit from Antiracism such as by becoming an advocate of it and towing the party line—then you will endure great injustice under Antiracism.
Antiracism, the hegemonic morality of our era, follows in that great and noble (joking) tradition of deciding to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. It thinks that waging witch hunt against ‘white racists’, and giving whites unfair treatment, will be for the greater good once it finally eradicates any shred of belief in human biodiversity.
The problem, however, is that it will never achieve these ends. It has no end game. Like Islam (for example), it will never convince everybody especially when (unlike Islam) it requires that an entire race be demonized.
The reason why the dogma underpinning the Antiracist morality is so persistent is that the people who critique it are, generally speaking, angry curmudgeons who do not understand the full implications of our current situation.
Many of them get embroiled in scientistic debates against advocates of Antiracism, such as Tim Wise. This is futile because belief precedes justification. We choose to believe in things not because of empirical reality, but because of the utility of holding beliefs. We prefer to say the right thing rather than be truly, factually correct.
I am coming at the problem from an entirely different angle. I have come to recognize antiracism as evil on universalist, moral grounds. I don’t give a fuck about abstract ideals about being scientifically correct, nor do I attach myself to white racial egoism. I don’t give a fuck about that stuff. I am not a white nationalist, although for deeper reason I totally support white people who are into that stuff.
Antiracism is a grand evil for all humanity. I recognize it as thus from what you might call a Buddhistic perspective.
Human evolution comes at the cost of human suffering. Natural selection comes at the cost of despair, death, marginalization, falling through the cracks, exploitation—et cetera.
The selective (using evolutionary terminology) implications of Antiracism is that it goes out of its way to preserve (reproductively!) traits which would otherwise be maladaptive in modern society—traits which don’t contribute meaningful to the very society which facilitates, through Antiracism, their continued existence.
This is patently unsustainable. Meanwhile, there is a horizon of human evolution. Deviating from that horizon-bound trajectory only means that maladaptive traits (many which are exhibited in high frequencies in ‘black’ populations) will eventually, one way or another, be strained out of the gene pool.
By the horizon, I’m saying that if you do a thought experiment about what human traits are the most consistently—and indeed increasingly—rewarded as human history plods onward. Some such perennially adaptive traits include, for example, deferential epistemologies, willingness to conform, cognitive capacity, willingness to abnegate one’s ego. A litmus test for such traits would be the ability to intuitively grasp the Prisoner’s Dilemma—IE: to be biased towards cooperating with others rather than competing against them over resources/survival.
‘The meek will inherit the earth’ is a quote I’ve become obsessed with over the years, which captures what I’m saying about the evolutionary horizon.
I came across a 2014 article in Time magazine by Nicolas Wade. It’s full-fledged HBD, with all the basic ideas you’d hear Jared Taylor drone on about at American Renaissance. Wade genuflects before the altar of the oneness of humanity, but all the HBD conclusions are intact.
I think in the next couple of years we will see the decisive conclusion of the post-war antiracist dogma. There is no point in arguing about the truth of HBD. It is unnecessary. Its falsity is an open secret. The whole of the scientific community more or less concedes to the truth of HBD—they are just timid about sticking their necks out in saying that we have to dump the hegemonic morality of antiracism.
To even raise one’s voice to argue for HBD on scientistic grounds is to grant the opposition a home court advantage. The burden of proof should be placed on the idea that evolution stopped when human history began.
The only thing we have to do is to a) formulate the universalist moral argument against racial blank slate dogma (which I have been laboring over for the past few years and b) articulate it.
The argument must, of course, be articulated through careful wording and due diligence inasmuch as it must be coherent, logical, and based on solid premises.
However, as should be amply clear, the language of human belief is not the language of logic. Belief precedes justification. Belief precedes logical argument.
This is where nonviolent direct action comes in—it asserts sobriety and sincerity, rather than the gum-flapping ‘rage’ of ego-enslaved, emotive reactionaries. This is where the importance of eluding categorization comes in. We have to stop making ourselves so vulnerable to being pigeonholed as bitter nostalgists for Hitler. We have to start coming across as the sorts of people who are onto something, who are doing something Promethean without fear of violence and without fear of being wrong. People who have access to some truth not yet visible to the consensus. In short, we have to speak the language of human history, the language of all revolutionary epochs.
All will flow from the dismantling of the antiracist dogma. This is the only thing that matters, strategically speaking. Once it is de-throned—and only then—all of the alt-right’s and white nationalism’s dreams will become in-reach. That said, the struggle is strictly epistemological and cultural. The politics all happen further downstream. The politics ought not concern any of us.
In the next couple years, this is how it’s going to go down. My involvement in this process will be limited to what I alone can do. That said, I will do my workshop on nonviolent direct action at the MLK monument. There will probably be no more than a handful of people in attendance. It will most likely go mostly unnoticed. But it will be of personal and symbolic importance. In my head, it is analogous to the Dieppe Raid in WWII, when the Brits/Canadians raided German-occupied France just for the sake of testing the waters.
I’ll be going to Haiti or Africa over the winter. Then, I’m hoping that by the spring I’ll *maybe* have enough of a following that I can start doing nonviolent direct action tactics aimed at prompting the scientific establishment to begin speaking up against this insane dystopic hegemonic morality that is ‘antiracism’.