This is the sort of holy grail of objectivists. If we could just reach the promised land of color-blind justice, where everyone is judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, we could solve all the problems on earth.
However, it's as though God did not want it to be that easy. If you apply any filter, any combination of filters, that is color-blind, you eventually end up exactly where you started -- our country being swamped and overrun by non-white immigrants, and the eventual extinction of the white race. For one thing, at a mere 8% of world population, and perhaps 2% of women of child-bearing age, no filter leaves whites a majority anywhere.
Suppose we applied a filter: "Only people of 115 IQ and above can move into our hypothetical country." How many non-whites could reach this threshold? Let's say 30%. And let's say, 10% of Arabs, Indians, Southeast Asians, hispanics, etc. And let's say, 5% of blacks. I'm just making wild estimates, but the numbers are so overwhelming that accuracy isn't necessary here.
We would have billions of people who still qualified.
Say we apply another filter: "Only people without any criminal records or vices, who marry and settle down, can live here." How much would this help? Since virtue, legal behavior, and high IQ, are already positively correlated, the second filter would have little impact on the people who already got through the first. Since East Asians have better family values than whites, and are less likely to be criminals, you would actually end up with a worse ratio of white:non-white than where you were with the first filter.
So we'll trot out a third filter: "Only good looking people can live here." But IQ already correlates to beauty -- plus we've just filtered out everyone who engages in vice. This means the only people left take care of themselves, dress well, have sharp, bright eyes, stay thin, and so on. It would be difficult to cross out anyone for their bad looks in a way that favors whites, unless you simply cross out anyone with dark skin as naturally ugly. Even this would do nothing to East Asians.
If filter #3 helps whites more than asians, filters #1 and #2 help asians more than whites. Since east asians have over twice the population of whites on Earth, no objective standard could end us up with a majority white nation. This is to say nothing of the hundreds of millions of dusky types from middle latitudes of the Earth who would still qualify by all measures.
We could add on additional filters, "Must speak our language." "Must earn a high salary." "Must share our religion." "Must endorse our constitution." But the same people would breeze through all those barriers like so much paper. There are plenty of East Asian Christians, who earn more than whites an average, and love democracy and human rights, who were born here and speak perfect English. If we added these criteria, it's possible for everyone to just adapt accordingly until they qualify again. At most it could buy us a few years until the rest of the world met the standards we set.
And then there are the jews. Jews can be attractive, virtuous, wealthy, intelligent, speak English, and all the rest. They would breeze through every single filter. And yet the people we must rid ourselves of MOST are these very jews. What kind of filtering are we managing if it leaves the same white-hating liberals in power as when we started?
So as much as I search for a way to avoid race, it's obvious that there is no cowardly way out of saying exactly what we want. We want to be around other whites, for NO OBJECTIVE REASON.
In other words, we want to be around other whites subjectively, not objectively. Objectively, we would still end up in a multicultural utopia ruled by jews who would stay at the top of everything. After a few centuries of race mixing whites would still cease to exist. Though it's obvious such a country would be far superior to the one we live in today, that has no filters at all, it still isn't what we are fighting for either. It still tastes like bitter, sour fruit in the mouth. It's like watching a three hour movie and being told that it's good but knowing, just from watching, that it isn't entertaining in the least. You just feel empty and violated while trying to smile to your enthusiastic friends and agree with them.
Could it really be that whites are therefore irrational for wanting a white homeland? Has it been mathematically proven that we shouldn't really have any objections, and the only objections we have are just signs of prejudice, bigotry, and hate? I am speaking entirely from a race realist perspective. Suppose everyone knows intelligence and crime and all the rest is biological and varies between the races, and is fine with the concept of filters having disproportionate impacts. They just want a color-blind test and let the chips fall where they may. They are speaking logically, rationally, in full honesty and integrity. It is we who look slimy, slippery, irrational, stupid.
My response to this is an emphatic denial. Whites are not irrational to insist on a white homeland, regardless of the fact that no set of filters (that do not just reduce back down to 'are you white?') can logically arrive at a white homeland.
I can give a few reasons, but I think most of the reasons left to be argued are weak and a color-blind idealist would simply say, "we can overcome those objections with idealistic effort."
For instance, I think people are hard-wired to be racist, that everyone is born preferring their race over other races. That everyone is born disliking people who look too far different from themselves. But this is not a serious objection. We already live in multi-racial countries, and it hasn't come to blows yet. Interracial marriage already happens, and it could be artificially expanded, or we could simply mix together all the races so that no one can tell each other apart. A color-blind idealist could think of all sorts of solutions that don't involve separation.
So let us go on to the next objection: People want their genes to survive, and it's obvious that white children and grandchildren have no genetic future in a diverse world. Race mixing, or simply being out-competed by people with completely different genomes, would scatter and destroy our heritage, that we have sacrificed so much to protect for these tens of thousands of years. But this too can be shrugged aside. Who cares if our genes don't survive, if they are replaced with better genes? Why should we act like unthinking animals who only care about evolution, when we are sentient beings capable of finding values greater than the lower beasts? Nothing essential is lost, everyone in the country has a high IQ, is virtuous, and good-looking, so what's the big deal which particular genes get us there?
I'm not interested in esoteric arguments that amount to 'just because' alongside a lot of mumbo-jumbo, so we can shove all that to the side. It wouldn't convince a color-blind idealist and therefore it's pointless.
Nor can we argue that 'if whites die out, we'll run out of inventions and discoveries,' because if that were the only issue, we could just replace all whites with jews, who are even more inventive than we are. From that angle we would just end up jewish supremacists, and our goal in life would be to increase the jewish population (and keep it pure), as much as possible.
But what if there is one thing we like about whites, that can't be said about any other group?
What if it we were uniquely trusting, and uniquely trustworthy? How important would that be?
Studies have shown it is Extremely relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities
In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community has a correlation [expressed as a beta equal to 0.04 in a multiple regression analysis (see Putnam, 2007)], to less trust both between and within ethnic groups.
Low trust with high diversity not only affects ethnic groups, but is also associated with:
* Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
* Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
* Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
* Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
* Less likelihood of working on a community project.
* Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
* Fewer close friends and confidants.
* Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
* More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
http://public.gettysburg.edu/~dborock/courses/Spring/p344/ps344read/fukuyama-social%20capital%20and%20globalization.pdf
The reasons for these differences in industrial structure have less to
do with level of development than with a key cultural characteristic,
what the sociologist James Coleman has labeled social capital—that is,
the component of human capital that allows members of a given society
to trust one another and cooperate in the formation of new groups
and associations.
Virtually all economic activity, from running a laundry to building
the latest-generation microprocessor, is carried out not by individuals
but by organizations that require a high degree of social cooperation.
As economists argue, the ability to form organizations depends on
institutions like property rights, contracts, and a system of commercial
law. But it also depends on a prior sense of moral community, that
is, an unwritten set of ethical rules or norms that serve as the basis of
social trust. Trust can dramatically reduce what economists call transaction
costs—costs of negotiation, enforcement, and the like—and
makes possible certain efficient forms of economic organization that
otherwise would be encumbered by extensive rules, contracts, litigation,
and bureaucracy. Moral communities, as they are lived and experienced
by their members, tend to be the product not of rational choice
in the economists' sense ofthe term, but of nonrational habit.
A number of forms of social capital enable people to trust one another
and build economic organizations. Tbe most obvious and natural one is
tbe family, witb tbe consequence tbat tbe vast majority of businesses,
bistorically and at present, are family businesses. Family structure affects
tbe nature of family businesses: tbe large extended families of soutbern
Cbina or central Italy bave become tbe basis for ratber large-scale and
dynamic enterprises. Beyond tbe family, tbere are kinsbip ties like tbe
lineages of Cbina and Korea tbat expand tbe radius of trust.
Tbis map is not immutable. Tbere are indications tbat tbe American
art of association bas been in serious decline over tbe past couple
of generations and that Americans are becoming as individualistic
as tbey bave always believed tbemselves to be. Social capital, just
like economic capital, will be depleted if not periodically renewed.
I don't really care about fukuyama's main points in his article. I just want a basic principle to be established, that high-trust societies are better than low-trust societies, and that trust is due to homogeneity. There is a reason trust can't be won any other way:
The Stranger
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Rudyard Kipling
Homogeneity gives people a unique set of loving impulses. Empathy is strong in people who can relate to those they are looking at. We can also predict what the other person is thinking or feeling, because we know it will not vary much from ourselves. We can read their body language and faces better. And genetically, it is obvious that our personality lurks somewhere in the ghost of all those A's, G's, C's, and T's, and that they must vary dramatically between the races. As Kipling says, "But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood."
Take this as a metaphor for completely assimilated non-whites, who you think are safely 'just like you.' Sooner or later, their kids will regress to the mean of their racial average personality, and then they will think and feel just as strangely as a person right off the boat from a far off land. What happens if these descendants of non-whites are the vast majority of your country? You won't understand or identify with ANY of them.
This is why inter-racial relationships are rare, and when they do happen, are more likely to break up. Homogeneity is a powerful force for trust and understanding of your partner -- if there is a fundamental gap between your two minds, it's like planting seeds in barren soil. Whether you are a couple, or friends, or countrymen, your bonds are so extremely fragile -- one mischance and it could all fall apart.
What is the constant complaint whites make of jews? They are liars. They are tricky. They are manipulative. You can't trust them.
Ultimately, does it matter whose fault this is? On one hand, say it's the jews fault, they really are sneaky liars. Why would whites want to live around them? Now suppose it's the opposite case, suppose biologically, whites are unable to trust, or understand, or empathize with, jews, and therefore literally tell the truth when they say, "You can't trust jews." Sure, other jews can trust jews, and the jews ARE perfectly trustworthy, but it is just as impossible for whites to trust jews, as it would be to grow wings and fly. They aren't saying we shouldn't trust jews, they're saying we CAN'T, like it or not.
Homogeneity is like a soothing balm to the millions of cuts in our collective soul. We look through our eyes alone in this world, separated from everyone and everything. We are born alone and we die alone, and we live solely alone, in our own heads, all the way in-between. We can never fully understand another person, we can never fully trust them. We never know if they mean what they say, or WHAT they mean by what they say. We try to interpret the meaning and intent behind people's actions, but ultimately we can only guess. If you assume too well of them, they'll betray you. If you assume too little, you'll drive them away.
In a world that has incredible trouble just keeping a marriage together, where it is a herculean effort for parents to get along with their kids -- our very blood, the people we share the same experiences with for decades -- what insane level of arrogance do we have that we can bring the whole world together? That we can all love each other and get along perfectly? That we can trust those around us?
People instinctively trust their own family, and their own ethnicity, and their own race. They instinctively distrust outsiders. And this time, we can't just say, "oh well, instincts are to be overcome." Because the question remains, "Overcome, how?" Has anyone ever overcome his own loneliness, his own separation from the rest of the world? Has anyone's consciousness ever merged with another's? For that matter, has any country ever displayed these otherworldly levels of trust among its fellow citizens, who Weren't related?
Trust is necessary for people to obey the orders of their government. If you can't trust your rulers to have your best interests in mind, if you think they are lying to you, or using you, the power of the government is dramatically weakened, and the risk of civil war rises dramatically. If the government is too weak to pass useful or necessary laws, the country falls behind its homogeneous opponents, who can rally everyone behind a new initiative and get everyone to put in a 100% patriotic effort for the motherland.
Trust is necessary for personal happiness. You need people you can count on, people who you can share anything with, people with whom you can be included. Diversity makes this nearly impossible. We are too afraid of giving offense. We cannot be our true selves. Everyone walks on eggshells because we are all so different, any little thing could erupt into bitter hatred. A nasty look or a sarcastic comment can make diverse co-workers into a blood feud or jurors decide to free an obviously guilty criminal or people elect an obviously unqualified politician. But if everyone there is homogeneous, the effect is muted or non-existent. People laugh at the joke or don't, people accept the criticism as fair or reject it as silly, but no one assumes, out of paranoia, that it is part and parcel of a racial conspiracy or invisible war of extermination.
But is it really paranoia to imagine non-whites have it in for you? How can you tell? Who can understand what lies behind those black eyes? What if they say they have no ill intentions, what if they even believe they have no ill intentions, but deep in their subconscious, everything they do is motivated by ethnic animosity or bigotry against you and yours? How would they even know what moves the deep wellsprings in their hearts, why they arrive at the loves and hates they do? Does anyone really think our conscious minds are calling the shots, determining our desires? We've already done scientific studies where people arrive at conclusions seconds before they arrive at the rationalizations for their conclusions, and sometimes we know for a fact the rationalization can't possibly have been the real reason.
You see, we did a simple experiment on people whose left and right brains were cut, no longer able to communicate. Then we covered one of the subject's eyes, so that only one brain could see. In front of the subject we held up a placard that read: "would you please get up and close the door?" The subject, trying to cooperate with the experimenter, would of course get up and close the door, before returning to their seat. But when asked why they had just gotten up and closed the door, the brain that never saw the placard and has no clue it was ever shown to them, feverishly came up with all sorts of reasonable answers -- answers we all knew were false, but the brain did not! "There was a draft." "I wanted to stretch out." "It was irritating me."
All humans are like those cut left and right brains. We have no conscious connections with others, we cannot meld minds. It is therefore impossible to know the true motivations, and the true reasoning, behind other people's actions. Even our own brains can't guess the reasoning of our other half, when the corpus callosum is cut. This problem grows exponentially larger, the less homogeneous a society grows. Paranoia and distrust will of course grow, when we can no longer believe, "This person is essentially just like me, and probably thinks in the exact same way I do." Since there is no way to verify our trust, all trust is blind. It depends entirely on this same-ness: "Well I'm trustworthy, and he's at least 90% genetically equivalent to me, so he's probably trustworthy too." Humans evolved to make these calculations, even if we don't make them mathematically, we have been guesstimating pretty damn well for millenia.
We must be able to trust each other. We cannot trust each other in a multicultural country. Therefore the price of heterogeneity is too high. We must be able to trust our leaders. We cannot trust leaders who don't come from our own stock. Therefore the price of jewish power is too high.
Business in a homogeneous society is simple. People agree to something, shake hands on it, and then it gets done. The more diverse, the more complicated business becomes. Endless reams of lawyers, written contracts, civil cases, laws and regulations must be passed to make people trust each other again. Let us suppose that objectively, everyone in a diverse country is just as trustworthy. Even so, the laws, regulations, contracts, and lawyers would still all be necessary. Because people cannot bring themselves to trust people they cannot understand or see as like themselves -- and need all of these assurances just like a child needs assurances that they'll be caught before they dare to jump in the pool. All of this hand-holding and coaxing and comforting, even if the fear and distrust is entirely irrational, creates a crippling expense on the economy. In fact, America has something like ten times as many lawyers as Europe. And of course, we have a million diversity commissions that hunt down racial grievances and malfeasance, trying at all times to make heterogeneous people treat each other equally. Simply complying with all these agencies, simply STAFFING all these agencies, is absurdly expensive to a company. The lost camaraderie of workers who never become friends makes life less enjoyable and less productive. Furthermore, the poor cannot unionize, or organize, against their employers because they cannot trust people of the same class, but different races. This gives capital an artificial advantage over labor, which is part of the reason why they love importing diverse workers as often as possible. How much worse this is when we consider how UN-DIVERSE management always is. It's a bunch of wasps, or a bunch of jews, or a bunch of indians, who huddle together in small groups of ten or one hundred, and have perfect unity concerning all decisions, and complete faith in each other. The idea that tens of thousands of hispanics, arabs, blacks, whites, filipinos, and eskimos could get together and create just as unified and cooperative a group as their masters is absurd. It can't be done. The trust just isn't there.
In the army, it is essential that men trust their commanders -- that they know what they are doing, that obeying them will lead to victory, that they are not needlessly risking your life. Can white people really trust a foreigner, some black or asian face, to have all those qualifications? Maybe they really don't care about you. heck, maybe they WANT you to die -- how can we ever know? What lies behind those black eyes? What if you are soldiers serving side by side. If you cannot rely on your fellow soldiers to cover you when you have point, when you aren't sure your rear is REALLY defended because maybe the non-whites to either flank have abandoned you to your fate without a shrug or wince of care for you -- how brave will you be? How can you concentrate on the enemy when you can't even trust your allies?
Consider the fact that even though Canada, the USA, Australia, and the UK all fought together in WWII, but they never integrated their units. There were separate divisions for each army, and separate generals leading them. Everyone knew British wouldn't trust Americans, or American generals, and vice versa. And yet we, fantastically, believe that the differences between these genetically similar, anglophone countries is wider than blacks, asians, and hispanics making up our army's ranks. Our military strength is far less than the courage and sacrifice a homogeneous nation can make. Going all the way back to the 300 spartans who held against the vast, diverse empire of Persia, it is clear that the more closely related your 'band of brothers' is, the harder they will fight for each other, and their country.
Adoptive parents find it hard to feel any connection to non-white adopted children. They end up not even loving them. The same is true of grandparents staring at mixed race grandchildren. What possible connection do they share? They look at the child's face, but they see nothing of themselves in it. What lies behind that child's black eyes? Should we sacrifice the love of our extended family for the sake of diversity? How much easier it is when we are all alike! Your guard goes down, your trust goes up, and then money from the elderly is given willingly to the young, and the family fortune rises.
Why work? Why have kids? Why do anything? Why even live? If you don't trust that your efforts will have some impact on the future, if you don't believe anything you do will last, then what motivates a man? A diverse nation is like a sandy beach, washed clean by the waves every single generation. Nothing stays the same, everything is always in flux, everything destroyed, everything fragile, everything washed away every day.
Suppose you are a deep thinker who says, "I will have a wretched life, but someday my grandchildren will be better off for it." What grandchildren? What if your country has completely disappeared beneath you before that time? What if people start outliving their own nations?? Who will make those benevolent sacrifices, who will make those long term investments anymore? No one. If you aren't sure that your sacrifice will mean something in the future, then there's no point making it. If you won't be remembered, loved, or benefit anyone in the future, there's no point doing anything in the present besides blind pleasure-seeking -- and that gets old really fast.
Trust is required for everything. To start a family, to save up money, to make friends, to do business, to win wars, to run a government, to live. Trust correlates directly to homogeneity. Arguments about how even if we were racially pure, we'd just start bickering over something else, completely ignore the idea of gradation. Suppose we did start bickering over something else, would it be as wide a gulf as race, or less wide a gulf? If we can lessen the gulf between people's hearts, if we can soothe the cuts in our collective soul, shouldn't we do everything possible? We need all the trust we can get. Like love, there's just never enough to go around. Whatever we lose in terms of objective filters, we gain in being able to have a high trust society. Therefore whites of objectively lower quality than non-whites, are subjectively far superior fellow-citizens to live beside. For US, they are better. As the decades have gone by, social scientists all thought that if we just educated kids to trust people of different races, that trust would flow like a gushing river into all the cracks in our world. That has not happened. Racial harmony is just as impossible now as it was 50 years ago. As Newsweek reported, even babies are racist. It isn't something we can educate away, and therefore, it's something we must accommodate. People cannot live a normal, decent, happy life in a diverse society. They are not genetically wired to do so, it is as hopeless as sprouting wings and flying. So we should stay homogeneous instead.
The objective benefits of diversity can sometimes be higher than these subjective benefits. That is why I draw the line at 90%. If you can trust ALMOST everyone you live around, there's nothing to fear and nothing to hide from. If you can trust BARELY anyone you live around, there's a lot to fear and hide from. Importing a few outside stars and intermarrying with them is not the same as completely swamping your country with strangers. Whatever marginal return I could gain by importing yet more foreigners than 10%, is a rapidly falling number and eventually crosses the upward cost of the loss in trust going on in my society. It's just not worth worrying about. Mentioning one or two non-white productive citizen all-star names can't possibly defeat the concept of a racial homeland.
And so, despite myself, and despite giving the strongest argument possible for a color-blind world, I find race to be an inescapable factor in an ideal nation. We cannot run away from it. There's no other formula that creates a decent environment for whites to live in. Therefore we must boldly, and unapologetically, face our fears. No matter how many condemnations we draw, no matter how un-PC our statements are, no matter how nice it would be if we could just somehow avoid mentioning race in all of our arguments -- we have to.
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
1 comment:
Post a Comment