Indeed, I suspect that they do understand the reality of a multiplicity of human natures, and that this is why they are so enthusiastic about merging the species into a single 'eurasian-negroid' race.
The anthrophysiocratic principle would seem to imply a multipolar, distributed subsidiarity as the best possible overarching governance model - in other words, to allow each group to govern itself as it sees fit. Which is actually quite liberal at the highest level; somewhat paradoxically so, as it is a liberality that embraces illiberalism.
Unity in Diversity is precisely the vision of the Heiliges Romanisches Reich that moderns have been running away from since their embrace of the Enlightenment Disenchantment of the World.
> The anthrophysiocratic principle would seem to imply a multipolar, distributed subsidiarity as the best possible overarching governance model - in other words, to allow each group to govern itself as it sees fit.
I think this model embracing multiple independent cultures needs a shorter name, maybe something like "multiculturalism".
Because multiculturalism is the melting pot, anthrophysiocratics is the salad. All the globohomo race mixing propaganda is under the title 'multiculturalism', usually under the demand that you deny yourself monoculturalism.
> Because multiculturalism is the melting pot, anthrophysiocratics is the salad.
Have you read anything the multiculturalists themselves wrote? They explicitly reject the melting pot and the one I'm most familiar also used a salad analogy.
You are correct. Multiculturalism is stated to be about celebrating differences in culture. In practice, however, it's primarily used in the context of demanding nationalists to admit foreigners in order to degrade national unity. It's always a term used to talk about a system where many cultures live in a single place and never about keeping people in their own countries and appreciating them from a distance. No one ever called a Japanese man a multiculturalist for saying he likes African art but that they should keep that art in Africa far away from their lands.
Nationalism would be a closer term to the anthrophysiocratic system because it has distinct populations, though as we see with the US being a nationalist doesn't guarantee athrophysiocratic homogeneity.
There are high IQ people who have truly greater brain power, but there are many who get their high IQ due to being weaker in other mental powers: empathy, ability to read expressions, ability to dance, ability to multitask, common sense, etc.
For example, my Black classmates back in high school were aggressively social and put great stake in maintaining situational awareness. Spacing out to think deep thoughts was frowned upon greatly. How much of this was cultural and how much was genetic is unknown to me, but my permanently tanned classmates were aware of this and other differences and damn proud of them. (Which is fine.)
While it is easy to overgeneralize, I would note that the characteristics listed above also reflect areas where Blacks are competitive or even better per capita than Whites: improvisational music, talk show hosting, and stand up comedy com to mind. These are areas where you will find Black in the far tail of the distribution. Consider Eddie Murphy in "The Nutty Professor." It's not the funniest movie ever made but it is one of the most impressive comic performances. The sheer number of truly different characters played by the same actor is truly impressive. The only actors I can think of in the same league are Peter Sellers and Dana Carvey.
Do Blacks excel in these fields because they were fields they were allowed to excel at in the Bad Old Days and so many Blacks cultivate these mental skills? Or is there a genetic component?
It's a rude question to ask. Far better is to downplay one dimensional metrics and celebrate comparative advantage.
Let us keep in mind that we had computers that could beat humans at arithmetic well over half a century ago. We had computer programs that could do symbolic algebra back when I was in grad school three and a half decades ago. We only recently have the computing power to make a robot walk like a human.
We have computers which can beat the world's best chess masters. But do we have robots that outdo the best break dancers?
I think IQ can equate to brain power. Edward Dutton had the rather solid idea that IQ is a good proxy for the health AND strength of your nervous system and assorted systems. Someone whose brain can fire off the the synapses .1 seconds faster then me is going to both have higher reflexes and score higher on most IQ tests. Inversely, someone whose brain was damaged by the vax or was simply born with synapses that fire .1 seconds slower than me will have slower reflexes and score worse than me on most IQ tests.
Different talents and inclinations do vary wildly between populations but you should be able to crunch out an IQ distribution amongst even separated populations. So you'll have the highest IQ black guy in the group of rapers, highest IQ white guy in France, etc. While IQ doesn't let you hash out specific talents when you apply it to the entire human population, you'll find a pretty strong correlation between IQ and nervous system responsiveness. A 150 IQ asian man is going to have a much healthier and responsive nervous system than a 80 IQ 'literally anybody else'.
Yes, it takes higher brain power to have a really high IQ. But spend any time in a graduate level physics program, where Mensa membership == dumbest person in the room, and you will find few who excel at team sports and many with very weak social skills. You will find more who are decent at individual sports like tennis, golf, or even weight lifting. These sports work for those who are good at focusing attention.
There are lots of people with 70- IQs who are quite good at sports. Many are excluded from playing due to high school GPA requirements.
And seriously. 150 IQ and responsive nervous system decorrelate. Einstein's reaction time could be on the order of hours.
I don't know if Einstein ever took a reflex test. He was known to do solo-sailing and violin playing and those don't strike me as well suited to the slow reactioned.
I do agree with your assessment that you can have high IQ with low social skills and teamwork. However at the high ends of team sports you'll see the high IQs too. Tom Brady is said to have 130+ and Michael Jordan was supposedly 150+. The average iq of pro sports players, on a quick search, is around 105-115.
First, we are all white amateur philosophers here, so naturally we have to disagree. I mean, at least one of us has to disagree, otherwise this would be Sparta. And I don't consider the old Spartans white, because they showed too much determination.
Second, there was a debate between E. Michael Jones and Jared Taylor on race not long ago. Turns out that I've been making similar arguments as E. Michael Jones for years. I find it hilarious when I see accomplished intellectuals agreeing with my own views.
Third, I think it is important that everyone looks inside, where only God and us can look, and ask ourselves this question: "Have I ever looked to see if genetics is a real science, or have I just accepted it as true because it is convenient for my beliefs?"
This is important. Dig very deep until the most deeply seated assumptions. Question them. One important observation is that the people who hate us have also given us modern evolutionary molecular biology, and they finance it and they promote it, and they have censored any disagreeing hypothesis from a legitimate scientist (not me, a mere internet amateur philosopher, I mean a real lab scientist.)
And these people who control our minds with things like the "genetic ideology" are very careful in fomenting racial hate without people ever realizing they are behind it. For instance, white people are always trembling of being called a racist, the more liberal one is the more fear one feels, and the less liberal one is the less fear one feels. But whites are only allowed to use inefficient rhetoric defense in selected sites. To hear other forms of defense, one has to search far away. And often there are scandals from the representatives of the so called racial minorities claiming to suffer negative discrimination from institutions, which is impossible.
And the people who fund official biological science and genetic research are also funding this soft cold war in society. In the end, every biological "fact" they produce is either completely in line with a liberal ideology that is openly anti-white racist and secretly racist in general, or in line with fringe ideologies that exist in the outskirts and are very frowned upon in the City.
It's as if all facts and all data were perfectly designed by political sorcerers or enchanters to match all the preconceived notions and assumptions that have been running the world since 1945.
When Pinker assumes all the science as correct, even though liberals always insist that science proves nothing and everything is relative and no one knows for sure and anything goes and who are you to judge, he is making a political declaration: those who deviate from the imperially decreed objective truth will be crushed, so check your premises.
I think it's healthy to check all the premises, including the very existence of DNA, its assumed role as the one and only molecule of the biological function of inheritance, and the mechanisms of transcription and translation. This is all over our heads as amateur white philosophers, but it is worth it to make sure that our arguments are not based on a politically inspired scientific fraud from our enemies, who rule over us, with almost no real opposition.
"Have I ever looked to see if genetics is a real science, or have I just accepted it as true because it is convenient for my beliefs?"
You have never bred a single plant or animal in your life. The very fact that you can have this idea speaks to how far removed you are from the bluest collar job of all - Farming & Animal Husbandry.
The rest of your post is just pilpul about power politics.
Natural phenomenon: the reproduction of living beings.
Theoretical explanation: genetics.
Fact: the theoretical explanation is a fiction created by humans starting from the observation of the natural phenomenon. The theoretical explanation never follows logically from the observation and observing the phenomenon again while bearing in mind the assumption that the theory is correct, cannot confirm the theory.
Anyone who does not understand this fact, needs to review the basics of logic and empirical science.
From Michael E Jones, whom you said had a similar argument to you:
"So what do we mean when we say that race is “real”? We mean that ethnicity has always been a category of reality. We also mean that physical characteristics are real and that they differ depending on what part of the planet you come from. The shape of your nose and the color of your skin are categories of reality. The virtues or vices associated with them, however, are categories of the mind, which get applied for political reasons."
Genetics is almost purely about the physical characteristics that Michael E Jones calls ethnicity and they have differences he does not argue against. If you say you agree with Michael then you admit the genetic reality of different groups, unless you clarify otherwise for us. For the debate, Michael used a particular form of the word race that was divorced from the genetics which he calls ethnicity.
In the context of this blog and even the comments you are replying to we are talking about physical traits and are using 'race' for that term. See: HamburgerToday's comment you responded to: "Race is biological, physical. Didn't you actually read the article?" which you disagreed with.
The rest of your post about theoretical genetics is unsound.
Inwardly they agree, IMO. The woke know they are exploiting the dumb among the poors.
For example, when they say they need more funding for public education, they imply that poor and stupid people need to spend more time in company of teachers in order to achieve equality with not as poor and not as stupid people. The metaphor of parasitic behavior fails: the woksters are not parasitizing the rich whites, they are abusing the dumbest of the blacks to rob and enslave everyone else, in a way that it's all too human, because no one has ever reported watching insects deplyoing this feeding tactic.
And the crime does not stop there. While they abuse the dumb, they try everything to annihilate morally and intellectually the smart blacks who are stuck in that morass. They want the problem to grow and to never be solved, and the effects of DIE policy are harmonious with that desire.
It's far worse than fraud and slavery what city liberals do.
>>But anthrophysiocracy also acknowledges that human nature is not a universal norm. It knows there is not one human nature, but many human natures, each grounded in the biology of its ancestrally distinct human group. Since human nature shapes human organization, there can be no one proper organization for every human population.<<
This is basically what the EthnoSociology lectures of Professor Aleksandr Dugan end with as well... that there are 'Many Humanitys & no *Humanity as such* that the Liberals & Globalists claim*.'
Feel Free Good Fren to also check out Professor Dugin's EthnoSociology works here:
A secret, perhaps still mostly subconscious, aspiration of the ruling global elite might be summarized by the popular phrase "Fake it until you make it." Through their monopolies on legacy media, academia, corporate culture, Silicon Valley, Madison Avenue, and Hollywood, the elite FAKE the axiom that disparate human lineages are cognitively and behaviorally interchangeable, until such time as they can MAKE this axiom true, through sociopolitical and, increasingly, outright genetic manipulation. If evolution failed to produce uniform human populations, it damn well should have. The Transhuman future will be one in which the random, cruel, and unjust evolutionary process will overthrown, and replaced by a revolutionary system defined by orderliness, beneficence, and justice. Human nature will only be the start; all of nature--Life Itself--will succumb, in time, to Intelligent Redesign. The theme of centuries to come will be the transformation of the actual into the ideal: of what is into what ought to be.... How well this will actually work, against what resistance, and to what unintended effects, of course, remains to be seen: we're still in the infancy of what will be universally regarded, for good or ill, as the greatest revolution not just in human history, but in the history of life on Earth. For now, the elite will keep pushing the Noble Lie until they can turn it into the Noble Truth.
"The unconstrained vision aligns more closely with liberal or progressive ideologies, advocating for active intervention and reform to address societal issues. The constrained vision, on the other hand, aligns more closely with conservative or libertarian ideologies, stressing the importance of maintaining order, sublimating vice, and demanding individual responsibility."
John Mearsheimer (ok ok swamp, boomer, whatever) made an elementary but very good point in a recent interview with the appalling bully Piers Morgan. He said that liberalism recognises (i.e. Hobbes and Locke) that there are many competing individual interests in a society and that they are the cause of intragroup discord. Further, he said, it is the purpose of liberal governments to permit and balance these interests while not favouring or penalising any of them., except I suppose in instances of insurrection. This being the case, liberals should be (and until quite recently were) in favour of precisely the sorts of things you attribute above to conservatives. They should also oppose immigration as contributing further to the fund of social discord and reducing order while increasing the prevalence of vice. No pre-war Anglo government was anything other than liberal, and no pre-war Anglo country was in favour of non-European immigration.
I do *not* say this as an impotent, Sargon-style reproach to contemporary liberals (READ LOCKE! LIVE UP TO YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES!) but rather to point out that the 'racist liberal' meme is real *in essence*, to the extent that the word 'racist' is a redundancy: LIBS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!
Further obvious to me in the above is the exiguous influence of ideology in the functioning of the state: liberal states then, liberal states now; near-zero non-Euro immigration then, mass non-Euro immigration now.
There was a reason that genetics was a field the MSM would cover extensively in the 2000's and early 2010's....but then it stopped when genetics showed:
Evolution by natural selection couldn't be true thanks to genetic entropy, positive vs negative mutations rates, gene fixation rates and a few bizarre mutations.
Homos were a product of environment as the separated twins data kept rolling in. "Born this way" quickly gave way to "abused into this as a child."
Men and women are grossly different, not just physically, mentally, psychologically and yes, genetically. It's like we are two separate species.
Biological race was true and is a thing. The 97% similar thing is based on a bs comparison of blood compositions, not genetics.
Behavior at a minimum is 50% genetic, probably closer to 80%.
And the anti-realist, blank-slatter, technocratic narcissists that make up the elite screamed "ignore" and much of this disappeared from the main stream.
Reality is a bitch. But if you get to know her, and adjust accordingly, the "sex" can be amazing.
God help us to abandon the lies and shibboleths of this rotten, degenerate European age.
I first came to this same conclusion in the 90's by two means: First, if you watch enough Nature documentaries you will start to realize that all primates (monkeys, baboons, chimps, gorillas, etc.) have an innate social structure, and that structure is remarkably similar to basic human social structures. The second was my introduction to the works of Lev Gumilev by a Russian colleague. Gumilev was way ahead of his time, but I was rather surprised that he was allowed to publish his work under the Communist regime. He theorizes that changes to the average nature of personalities and it's effect on populations can occur in very short time periods - hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. For example, he attributes the post-war demise of Europe to the loss of aggressive, risk-taking men by means of 19th century immigration and 20th century wars, which prevented their genes from being passed on in Europe. It is difficult to believe that the de-masculinization of European society is due purely to social restructuring.
A good essay and a brave one. However, recent work in the polygenic field tend to argue against large differences (1sd) in GWAS. Sure, there are those who make the pgsEDU argument, but they tend to drastically underestimate the extent to which terrible ideas in K-12 systems can spread across borders and jurisdictions rapidly, whilst good ideas in education (especially if time-honoured) are largely overlooked and studiously ignored.
It's worth looking at London as an exception, educationally, in terms of how the collision of a few good ideas at the same time managed to raise African British educational outcomes under exam conditions, basically eliminating racial differences in earnings for the 18 to 30 category.
Here's the far more likely hypothesis. Relatively small differences (0.1 to 0.2 sd) tend to compound over time and intergenerationally, which only an extremely fortuitous set of circumstances and rare wisdom can reverse. In a sense, this creates a well without a ladder- and despite all the folly of youthful optimism it seems to be an incredibly hard situation to reverse, requiring a rare mix of 'unconstrained' ambition paired with 'constrained' pragmatism. In nearly forty years of watching current affairs in the UK, with literally thousands of announcements of public policy, I've only ever seen it happen twice with the receipts to prove it.
Let's look at a historical analogy- the American Irish. They languished for over a century in the most pitiful and deprived condition. Achieving political power hardly helped the American Irish at all- for the simple reason that politics lacks the scalpel to change things for the better, other than through some fairly obvious 'equality under the law' reforms. What did help was the economics of timing, and a period of almost unlimited requirement for blue collar labour. That being said, without incredibly strict Catholic schooling systems, it's highly unlikely the American Irish would have ever been able to capitalise on the labour gains of a few generations and leverage itself into somewhat cohort-wide upward social mobility.
What is system-wide in the West in education is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Toxic compassion as a form of well-meaning help really doesn't help. We know. It's been tested. Other than a very modest public investment in classroom training for teachers, stricter schools seems to be one of the primary reasons why London schools have so quickly managed to raise educational outcomes.
And it's not as though the Tories didn't try checking the results to see whether they were real. There was a recent attempt to reverse an admittedly substantial degree of system-wide grade inflation. However, in this regard it wasn't the Black British daughters of single mothers raised in poor London Boroughs with endemic knife-crime who were found wanting, but rather the privileged scions of Eton, victims of coddled parenting and soft schooling who were found to be 'not top drawer'.
Thank you for such a good example of clear writing. Your progression of ideas made me think, and empowered the creative leap from simply arguing that great policy only occurs when both liberals and conservatives bring their best ideas to the table. If only it were that simple. Instead, it seems to be the case that rare societal circumstances where the unconstrained view has the mandate, but the constrained view is left to run the show; to test, measure and implement; is the only time such ambitious projects can work.
I can't see that happening in the West in the next decade- can you?
“The aim of eugenics is to represent each class or sect by its best specimens; that done, to leave them to work out their common civilization in their own way.” – Francis Galton, Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims, 1904
It's easy to see how the meliorative-interventionist approach to social problems (the domain of liberals) is perfectly in accord with eugenics programs.
This is further proof that LIBS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!
Language nit: on your paragraph introducing Steven Pinker, you say "Far from being a blank slate, human nature is an intricate tapestry woven from millions of years of evolutionary choices."
I "object" to the word "choices", as it suggests evolution is a directed action with a "mind" or something to choose among the available options. But it is of course a passive result of the organism having (or genes or alleles creating) a phenotype better adapted to the given environment within which it exists so that it can reproduce that feature or trait contributing to the survival of that organism's genome. I would be happier with the phrase "evolutionary selections", or other language supporting the passive nature of what is observed. :-)
Even people who do know better often inadvertently anthropomorphize this discussion/ description.
Just as some populations fare better or worse with a diet of milk, wheat, or rice, so too do some populations fare better or worse with different social structures. Liberal democracy might work for one group, Christian conservatism for another, and authoritarian stratocracy for a third.
I think you've circled all the way back around to post modernism. :-(
Definitely not. I don't know how one reaches that conclusion from my thoughts. Postmodernism says "milk is a social construct that some cultures have adopted, they could have chosen cyanide instead." It entirely denies the existence of objective facts.
Right! Just take it a step further. There are no objective facts because ultimately there is no Truth. Therefore, all choices are equal. You like liberal democracy, but I like Christian conservatism. Just do what works for you, man!
I understand your point about the wild diversity of man, but I worry that you're taking it too far.
Hah! This is why I spent months writing on epistemology before I began to talk about my political philosophy. I feel I've done a good job defending the existence of Truth and the human ability to perceive certain Truths through noesis.
I genuinely consider myself the furthest thing from postmodernism. I despise it and want nothing to do with it. You are doubtless correct that some of my arguments can be used by postmodernists but I have yet to encounter ANY philosophy that postmodernists can corrupt with their sophistry. :-\
Ok, so how should members of superior cultures relate to inferior cultures and vice versa?
Should members of inferior cultures attempt to improve their cultures to be more like the superior culture? What should they do when they're more traditional co-culturalists object? Should members of the superior culture help with this endeavor?
I'm certainly not going to argue for altruism at a cultural level when my entire moral philosophy is rooted in Aristotelian egoism.
Let's re-center it on something that isn't so "loaded":
"The issue comes down to whether one is willing to admit that some diets are better than others."
"Which I am. The traditional Mediterranean diet is objectively better for you than the American fast food diet."
"Should members of inferior meal plans attempt to improve their meal plans to be more like the superior meal plan? What should they do when their more traditional co-culturalists object? Should members of the superior culture help with this endeavor?"
1) They can if they want to. It's their diet. If they want to eat Big Macs and die of a heart attack, that's on them.
2) They can settle it however they settle disputes. It's on them.
3) Only if they want to. They're under zero obligation to do so.
While I tend to be morally universalist on substantive issues (murder should be illegal everywhere) I tend to be more relativistic about forms of government. America is a federated republic while the United Kingdom is a unitary constitutional monarchy; and that is even with the demographic similarities between those two nations. Imagine what the differences in statecraft are between Africans and East Asians? I wonder how governance is different between races and what kind of state we can deduce from biology?
if the weather, soil, or waters on which a people evolve (even the food they have access to) shapes them, they it is logical they will be different, Unique. What kind of failure of imagination person has a problem with this? it makes life More interesting. "people have to be all the same" oh really? they are not, not even in the same family, because humans are hyper adaptive. Utopia, like perfection is a toxic idea. there are trade offs, and the only utopia will be on a dead planet, or a blank canvas...which changes once something is put on it. fantasy is always better that reality, because it is made to suit the individual imagining it. No 2 people will imagine the same utopia, because even if they are twins, they will be too different. and we now know epigenetics are a thing.....
I realize that this nit is entirely tangential to the argument made and supports deployed, but I must pick it nonetheless, as I am pedant and disagreeable boor. I should say that otherwise, I have no disagreements with the essay and endorse it. But I find it curious that the following section is left hanging and unqualified, as if our Author agrees with it implicitly.
"What Pinker calls the tragic view is essentially Thomas Sowell's constrained vision. It sees human nature as inherently flawed, marked by selfishness, and limited in its capacity for change. Social structures that ignore, or try to eradicate, these innate tendencies, inevitably fail. Rather than trying to create a perfect society, we should focus on creating systems that mitigate and sublimate our flaws while allowing for the greatest amount of freedom and prosperity."
> We should maximize freedom and prosperity
Why? It seems to me that attempting to do this is how we got here.
Indeed, I suspect that they do understand the reality of a multiplicity of human natures, and that this is why they are so enthusiastic about merging the species into a single 'eurasian-negroid' race.
The anthrophysiocratic principle would seem to imply a multipolar, distributed subsidiarity as the best possible overarching governance model - in other words, to allow each group to govern itself as it sees fit. Which is actually quite liberal at the highest level; somewhat paradoxically so, as it is a liberality that embraces illiberalism.
Unity in Diversity is precisely the vision of the Heiliges Romanisches Reich that moderns have been running away from since their embrace of the Enlightenment Disenchantment of the World.
> The anthrophysiocratic principle would seem to imply a multipolar, distributed subsidiarity as the best possible overarching governance model - in other words, to allow each group to govern itself as it sees fit.
I think this model embracing multiple independent cultures needs a shorter name, maybe something like "multiculturalism".
That's taken, however. And has been given precisely the opposite meaning.
How so? How is your position different from the established meaning?
Because it has fuck all to do with mass immigration.
Because multiculturalism is the melting pot, anthrophysiocratics is the salad. All the globohomo race mixing propaganda is under the title 'multiculturalism', usually under the demand that you deny yourself monoculturalism.
> Because multiculturalism is the melting pot, anthrophysiocratics is the salad.
Have you read anything the multiculturalists themselves wrote? They explicitly reject the melting pot and the one I'm most familiar also used a salad analogy.
You are correct. Multiculturalism is stated to be about celebrating differences in culture. In practice, however, it's primarily used in the context of demanding nationalists to admit foreigners in order to degrade national unity. It's always a term used to talk about a system where many cultures live in a single place and never about keeping people in their own countries and appreciating them from a distance. No one ever called a Japanese man a multiculturalist for saying he likes African art but that they should keep that art in Africa far away from their lands.
Nationalism would be a closer term to the anthrophysiocratic system because it has distinct populations, though as we see with the US being a nationalist doesn't guarantee athrophysiocratic homogeneity.
You will start to understand the world better when you can acknowledge that IQ is genetic. Every race has an average IQ.
But IQ is NOT equivalent to brain power. Keeping this point front and center makes for a useful sugar coating of a bitter pill.
The thing is that the most destructive ideas tend to come from high IQ people.
There are high IQ people who have truly greater brain power, but there are many who get their high IQ due to being weaker in other mental powers: empathy, ability to read expressions, ability to dance, ability to multitask, common sense, etc.
For example, my Black classmates back in high school were aggressively social and put great stake in maintaining situational awareness. Spacing out to think deep thoughts was frowned upon greatly. How much of this was cultural and how much was genetic is unknown to me, but my permanently tanned classmates were aware of this and other differences and damn proud of them. (Which is fine.)
While it is easy to overgeneralize, I would note that the characteristics listed above also reflect areas where Blacks are competitive or even better per capita than Whites: improvisational music, talk show hosting, and stand up comedy com to mind. These are areas where you will find Black in the far tail of the distribution. Consider Eddie Murphy in "The Nutty Professor." It's not the funniest movie ever made but it is one of the most impressive comic performances. The sheer number of truly different characters played by the same actor is truly impressive. The only actors I can think of in the same league are Peter Sellers and Dana Carvey.
Do Blacks excel in these fields because they were fields they were allowed to excel at in the Bad Old Days and so many Blacks cultivate these mental skills? Or is there a genetic component?
It's a rude question to ask. Far better is to downplay one dimensional metrics and celebrate comparative advantage.
Let us keep in mind that we had computers that could beat humans at arithmetic well over half a century ago. We had computer programs that could do symbolic algebra back when I was in grad school three and a half decades ago. We only recently have the computing power to make a robot walk like a human.
We have computers which can beat the world's best chess masters. But do we have robots that outdo the best break dancers?
I think IQ can equate to brain power. Edward Dutton had the rather solid idea that IQ is a good proxy for the health AND strength of your nervous system and assorted systems. Someone whose brain can fire off the the synapses .1 seconds faster then me is going to both have higher reflexes and score higher on most IQ tests. Inversely, someone whose brain was damaged by the vax or was simply born with synapses that fire .1 seconds slower than me will have slower reflexes and score worse than me on most IQ tests.
Different talents and inclinations do vary wildly between populations but you should be able to crunch out an IQ distribution amongst even separated populations. So you'll have the highest IQ black guy in the group of rapers, highest IQ white guy in France, etc. While IQ doesn't let you hash out specific talents when you apply it to the entire human population, you'll find a pretty strong correlation between IQ and nervous system responsiveness. A 150 IQ asian man is going to have a much healthier and responsive nervous system than a 80 IQ 'literally anybody else'.
Yes, it takes higher brain power to have a really high IQ. But spend any time in a graduate level physics program, where Mensa membership == dumbest person in the room, and you will find few who excel at team sports and many with very weak social skills. You will find more who are decent at individual sports like tennis, golf, or even weight lifting. These sports work for those who are good at focusing attention.
There are lots of people with 70- IQs who are quite good at sports. Many are excluded from playing due to high school GPA requirements.
And seriously. 150 IQ and responsive nervous system decorrelate. Einstein's reaction time could be on the order of hours.
I don't know if Einstein ever took a reflex test. He was known to do solo-sailing and violin playing and those don't strike me as well suited to the slow reactioned.
I do agree with your assessment that you can have high IQ with low social skills and teamwork. However at the high ends of team sports you'll see the high IQs too. Tom Brady is said to have 130+ and Michael Jordan was supposedly 150+. The average iq of pro sports players, on a quick search, is around 105-115.
Nor has anything to do with wisdom, the most important human attribute.
The genes are the parents, in the same sense that Santa is the parents.
What is a race? It's just language. Merely a category.
We see what we want to see.
Race is biological, physical. Didn't you actually read the article?
Saying 'What is race' is like saying 'What is a breed?'
The answer is easy if you don't self-lobotomize.
First, we are all white amateur philosophers here, so naturally we have to disagree. I mean, at least one of us has to disagree, otherwise this would be Sparta. And I don't consider the old Spartans white, because they showed too much determination.
Second, there was a debate between E. Michael Jones and Jared Taylor on race not long ago. Turns out that I've been making similar arguments as E. Michael Jones for years. I find it hilarious when I see accomplished intellectuals agreeing with my own views.
Third, I think it is important that everyone looks inside, where only God and us can look, and ask ourselves this question: "Have I ever looked to see if genetics is a real science, or have I just accepted it as true because it is convenient for my beliefs?"
This is important. Dig very deep until the most deeply seated assumptions. Question them. One important observation is that the people who hate us have also given us modern evolutionary molecular biology, and they finance it and they promote it, and they have censored any disagreeing hypothesis from a legitimate scientist (not me, a mere internet amateur philosopher, I mean a real lab scientist.)
And these people who control our minds with things like the "genetic ideology" are very careful in fomenting racial hate without people ever realizing they are behind it. For instance, white people are always trembling of being called a racist, the more liberal one is the more fear one feels, and the less liberal one is the less fear one feels. But whites are only allowed to use inefficient rhetoric defense in selected sites. To hear other forms of defense, one has to search far away. And often there are scandals from the representatives of the so called racial minorities claiming to suffer negative discrimination from institutions, which is impossible.
And the people who fund official biological science and genetic research are also funding this soft cold war in society. In the end, every biological "fact" they produce is either completely in line with a liberal ideology that is openly anti-white racist and secretly racist in general, or in line with fringe ideologies that exist in the outskirts and are very frowned upon in the City.
It's as if all facts and all data were perfectly designed by political sorcerers or enchanters to match all the preconceived notions and assumptions that have been running the world since 1945.
When Pinker assumes all the science as correct, even though liberals always insist that science proves nothing and everything is relative and no one knows for sure and anything goes and who are you to judge, he is making a political declaration: those who deviate from the imperially decreed objective truth will be crushed, so check your premises.
I think it's healthy to check all the premises, including the very existence of DNA, its assumed role as the one and only molecule of the biological function of inheritance, and the mechanisms of transcription and translation. This is all over our heads as amateur white philosophers, but it is worth it to make sure that our arguments are not based on a politically inspired scientific fraud from our enemies, who rule over us, with almost no real opposition.
"Have I ever looked to see if genetics is a real science, or have I just accepted it as true because it is convenient for my beliefs?"
You have never bred a single plant or animal in your life. The very fact that you can have this idea speaks to how far removed you are from the bluest collar job of all - Farming & Animal Husbandry.
The rest of your post is just pilpul about power politics.
Basic logic.
Natural phenomenon: the reproduction of living beings.
Theoretical explanation: genetics.
Fact: the theoretical explanation is a fiction created by humans starting from the observation of the natural phenomenon. The theoretical explanation never follows logically from the observation and observing the phenomenon again while bearing in mind the assumption that the theory is correct, cannot confirm the theory.
Anyone who does not understand this fact, needs to review the basics of logic and empirical science.
From Michael E Jones, whom you said had a similar argument to you:
"So what do we mean when we say that race is “real”? We mean that ethnicity has always been a category of reality. We also mean that physical characteristics are real and that they differ depending on what part of the planet you come from. The shape of your nose and the color of your skin are categories of reality. The virtues or vices associated with them, however, are categories of the mind, which get applied for political reasons."
Genetics is almost purely about the physical characteristics that Michael E Jones calls ethnicity and they have differences he does not argue against. If you say you agree with Michael then you admit the genetic reality of different groups, unless you clarify otherwise for us. For the debate, Michael used a particular form of the word race that was divorced from the genetics which he calls ethnicity.
In the context of this blog and even the comments you are replying to we are talking about physical traits and are using 'race' for that term. See: HamburgerToday's comment you responded to: "Race is biological, physical. Didn't you actually read the article?" which you disagreed with.
The rest of your post about theoretical genetics is unsound.
Race is more than just language, but less than family relationship.
I deal with lower-class Blacks in a major American city on a daily basis in my law practice. They have average IQ's in the 80's.
You mean them homies be dumb? Yeah, everyone agrees with that.
But what exactly is it about those individuals and their genomes that causes such despair in the people who worship Bach, Beethoven and Brahms?
No one knows yet the exact chemical explanation of the effect of fenotype on behavior. We assume that and then beg the question over and over again.
Umm, some people agree that "them homies be dumb". Those who worship at the altar of DEI/Wokeness do not.
Inwardly they agree, IMO. The woke know they are exploiting the dumb among the poors.
For example, when they say they need more funding for public education, they imply that poor and stupid people need to spend more time in company of teachers in order to achieve equality with not as poor and not as stupid people. The metaphor of parasitic behavior fails: the woksters are not parasitizing the rich whites, they are abusing the dumbest of the blacks to rob and enslave everyone else, in a way that it's all too human, because no one has ever reported watching insects deplyoing this feeding tactic.
And the crime does not stop there. While they abuse the dumb, they try everything to annihilate morally and intellectually the smart blacks who are stuck in that morass. They want the problem to grow and to never be solved, and the effects of DIE policy are harmonious with that desire.
It's far worse than fraud and slavery what city liberals do.
>>But anthrophysiocracy also acknowledges that human nature is not a universal norm. It knows there is not one human nature, but many human natures, each grounded in the biology of its ancestrally distinct human group. Since human nature shapes human organization, there can be no one proper organization for every human population.<<
This is basically what the EthnoSociology lectures of Professor Aleksandr Dugan end with as well... that there are 'Many Humanitys & no *Humanity as such* that the Liberals & Globalists claim*.'
Feel Free Good Fren to also check out Professor Dugin's EthnoSociology works here:
https://arktos.com/product/ethnosociology/
https://arktos.com/product/ethnos-and-society/
A secret, perhaps still mostly subconscious, aspiration of the ruling global elite might be summarized by the popular phrase "Fake it until you make it." Through their monopolies on legacy media, academia, corporate culture, Silicon Valley, Madison Avenue, and Hollywood, the elite FAKE the axiom that disparate human lineages are cognitively and behaviorally interchangeable, until such time as they can MAKE this axiom true, through sociopolitical and, increasingly, outright genetic manipulation. If evolution failed to produce uniform human populations, it damn well should have. The Transhuman future will be one in which the random, cruel, and unjust evolutionary process will overthrown, and replaced by a revolutionary system defined by orderliness, beneficence, and justice. Human nature will only be the start; all of nature--Life Itself--will succumb, in time, to Intelligent Redesign. The theme of centuries to come will be the transformation of the actual into the ideal: of what is into what ought to be.... How well this will actually work, against what resistance, and to what unintended effects, of course, remains to be seen: we're still in the infancy of what will be universally regarded, for good or ill, as the greatest revolution not just in human history, but in the history of life on Earth. For now, the elite will keep pushing the Noble Lie until they can turn it into the Noble Truth.
"The unconstrained vision aligns more closely with liberal or progressive ideologies, advocating for active intervention and reform to address societal issues. The constrained vision, on the other hand, aligns more closely with conservative or libertarian ideologies, stressing the importance of maintaining order, sublimating vice, and demanding individual responsibility."
John Mearsheimer (ok ok swamp, boomer, whatever) made an elementary but very good point in a recent interview with the appalling bully Piers Morgan. He said that liberalism recognises (i.e. Hobbes and Locke) that there are many competing individual interests in a society and that they are the cause of intragroup discord. Further, he said, it is the purpose of liberal governments to permit and balance these interests while not favouring or penalising any of them., except I suppose in instances of insurrection. This being the case, liberals should be (and until quite recently were) in favour of precisely the sorts of things you attribute above to conservatives. They should also oppose immigration as contributing further to the fund of social discord and reducing order while increasing the prevalence of vice. No pre-war Anglo government was anything other than liberal, and no pre-war Anglo country was in favour of non-European immigration.
I do *not* say this as an impotent, Sargon-style reproach to contemporary liberals (READ LOCKE! LIVE UP TO YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES!) but rather to point out that the 'racist liberal' meme is real *in essence*, to the extent that the word 'racist' is a redundancy: LIBS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!
Further obvious to me in the above is the exiguous influence of ideology in the functioning of the state: liberal states then, liberal states now; near-zero non-Euro immigration then, mass non-Euro immigration now.
There was a reason that genetics was a field the MSM would cover extensively in the 2000's and early 2010's....but then it stopped when genetics showed:
Evolution by natural selection couldn't be true thanks to genetic entropy, positive vs negative mutations rates, gene fixation rates and a few bizarre mutations.
Homos were a product of environment as the separated twins data kept rolling in. "Born this way" quickly gave way to "abused into this as a child."
Men and women are grossly different, not just physically, mentally, psychologically and yes, genetically. It's like we are two separate species.
Biological race was true and is a thing. The 97% similar thing is based on a bs comparison of blood compositions, not genetics.
Behavior at a minimum is 50% genetic, probably closer to 80%.
And the anti-realist, blank-slatter, technocratic narcissists that make up the elite screamed "ignore" and much of this disappeared from the main stream.
Reality is a bitch. But if you get to know her, and adjust accordingly, the "sex" can be amazing.
God help us to abandon the lies and shibboleths of this rotten, degenerate European age.
"Sowell, being conservative, believes that the **unconstrained** view of human nature is the correct view" -- typo?
typo!
I was about to ask the same.
Good to see such unilateral agreement with this week's rather vanilla and uncontroversial topic!
I first came to this same conclusion in the 90's by two means: First, if you watch enough Nature documentaries you will start to realize that all primates (monkeys, baboons, chimps, gorillas, etc.) have an innate social structure, and that structure is remarkably similar to basic human social structures. The second was my introduction to the works of Lev Gumilev by a Russian colleague. Gumilev was way ahead of his time, but I was rather surprised that he was allowed to publish his work under the Communist regime. He theorizes that changes to the average nature of personalities and it's effect on populations can occur in very short time periods - hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. For example, he attributes the post-war demise of Europe to the loss of aggressive, risk-taking men by means of 19th century immigration and 20th century wars, which prevented their genes from being passed on in Europe. It is difficult to believe that the de-masculinization of European society is due purely to social restructuring.
Wars are an instrument of state...against the subjects of the state.
^ And this is what the result of the loss of aggressive risk-taking looks like.
All the suckers say that.
Yes, wars are only for the aggressive risk-taking suckers.
A good essay and a brave one. However, recent work in the polygenic field tend to argue against large differences (1sd) in GWAS. Sure, there are those who make the pgsEDU argument, but they tend to drastically underestimate the extent to which terrible ideas in K-12 systems can spread across borders and jurisdictions rapidly, whilst good ideas in education (especially if time-honoured) are largely overlooked and studiously ignored.
It's worth looking at London as an exception, educationally, in terms of how the collision of a few good ideas at the same time managed to raise African British educational outcomes under exam conditions, basically eliminating racial differences in earnings for the 18 to 30 category.
Here's the far more likely hypothesis. Relatively small differences (0.1 to 0.2 sd) tend to compound over time and intergenerationally, which only an extremely fortuitous set of circumstances and rare wisdom can reverse. In a sense, this creates a well without a ladder- and despite all the folly of youthful optimism it seems to be an incredibly hard situation to reverse, requiring a rare mix of 'unconstrained' ambition paired with 'constrained' pragmatism. In nearly forty years of watching current affairs in the UK, with literally thousands of announcements of public policy, I've only ever seen it happen twice with the receipts to prove it.
Let's look at a historical analogy- the American Irish. They languished for over a century in the most pitiful and deprived condition. Achieving political power hardly helped the American Irish at all- for the simple reason that politics lacks the scalpel to change things for the better, other than through some fairly obvious 'equality under the law' reforms. What did help was the economics of timing, and a period of almost unlimited requirement for blue collar labour. That being said, without incredibly strict Catholic schooling systems, it's highly unlikely the American Irish would have ever been able to capitalise on the labour gains of a few generations and leverage itself into somewhat cohort-wide upward social mobility.
What is system-wide in the West in education is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Toxic compassion as a form of well-meaning help really doesn't help. We know. It's been tested. Other than a very modest public investment in classroom training for teachers, stricter schools seems to be one of the primary reasons why London schools have so quickly managed to raise educational outcomes.
And it's not as though the Tories didn't try checking the results to see whether they were real. There was a recent attempt to reverse an admittedly substantial degree of system-wide grade inflation. However, in this regard it wasn't the Black British daughters of single mothers raised in poor London Boroughs with endemic knife-crime who were found wanting, but rather the privileged scions of Eton, victims of coddled parenting and soft schooling who were found to be 'not top drawer'.
Thank you for such a good example of clear writing. Your progression of ideas made me think, and empowered the creative leap from simply arguing that great policy only occurs when both liberals and conservatives bring their best ideas to the table. If only it were that simple. Instead, it seems to be the case that rare societal circumstances where the unconstrained view has the mandate, but the constrained view is left to run the show; to test, measure and implement; is the only time such ambitious projects can work.
I can't see that happening in the West in the next decade- can you?
Thanks for the kind words and in-depth response!
I don't see that happening in the West, no, no! Heh.
A blast from the past:
“The aim of eugenics is to represent each class or sect by its best specimens; that done, to leave them to work out their common civilization in their own way.” – Francis Galton, Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims, 1904
Note that Galton was a liberal.
It's easy to see how the meliorative-interventionist approach to social problems (the domain of liberals) is perfectly in accord with eugenics programs.
This is further proof that LIBS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!
Language nit: on your paragraph introducing Steven Pinker, you say "Far from being a blank slate, human nature is an intricate tapestry woven from millions of years of evolutionary choices."
I "object" to the word "choices", as it suggests evolution is a directed action with a "mind" or something to choose among the available options. But it is of course a passive result of the organism having (or genes or alleles creating) a phenotype better adapted to the given environment within which it exists so that it can reproduce that feature or trait contributing to the survival of that organism's genome. I would be happier with the phrase "evolutionary selections", or other language supporting the passive nature of what is observed. :-)
Even people who do know better often inadvertently anthropomorphize this discussion/ description.
Fair enough, that's a respectable nit. :-)
Just as some populations fare better or worse with a diet of milk, wheat, or rice, so too do some populations fare better or worse with different social structures. Liberal democracy might work for one group, Christian conservatism for another, and authoritarian stratocracy for a third.
I think you've circled all the way back around to post modernism. :-(
Definitely not. I don't know how one reaches that conclusion from my thoughts. Postmodernism says "milk is a social construct that some cultures have adopted, they could have chosen cyanide instead." It entirely denies the existence of objective facts.
Right! Just take it a step further. There are no objective facts because ultimately there is no Truth. Therefore, all choices are equal. You like liberal democracy, but I like Christian conservatism. Just do what works for you, man!
I understand your point about the wild diversity of man, but I worry that you're taking it too far.
Hah! This is why I spent months writing on epistemology before I began to talk about my political philosophy. I feel I've done a good job defending the existence of Truth and the human ability to perceive certain Truths through noesis.
I genuinely consider myself the furthest thing from postmodernism. I despise it and want nothing to do with it. You are doubtless correct that some of my arguments can be used by postmodernists but I have yet to encounter ANY philosophy that postmodernists can corrupt with their sophistry. :-\
The issue comes down to whether one is willing to admit that some cultures are better than others.
Which I am.
Ok, so how should members of superior cultures relate to inferior cultures and vice versa?
Should members of inferior cultures attempt to improve their cultures to be more like the superior culture? What should they do when they're more traditional co-culturalists object? Should members of the superior culture help with this endeavor?
I'm certainly not going to argue for altruism at a cultural level when my entire moral philosophy is rooted in Aristotelian egoism.
Let's re-center it on something that isn't so "loaded":
"The issue comes down to whether one is willing to admit that some diets are better than others."
"Which I am. The traditional Mediterranean diet is objectively better for you than the American fast food diet."
"Should members of inferior meal plans attempt to improve their meal plans to be more like the superior meal plan? What should they do when their more traditional co-culturalists object? Should members of the superior culture help with this endeavor?"
1) They can if they want to. It's their diet. If they want to eat Big Macs and die of a heart attack, that's on them.
2) They can settle it however they settle disputes. It's on them.
3) Only if they want to. They're under zero obligation to do so.
While I tend to be morally universalist on substantive issues (murder should be illegal everywhere) I tend to be more relativistic about forms of government. America is a federated republic while the United Kingdom is a unitary constitutional monarchy; and that is even with the demographic similarities between those two nations. Imagine what the differences in statecraft are between Africans and East Asians? I wonder how governance is different between races and what kind of state we can deduce from biology?
if the weather, soil, or waters on which a people evolve (even the food they have access to) shapes them, they it is logical they will be different, Unique. What kind of failure of imagination person has a problem with this? it makes life More interesting. "people have to be all the same" oh really? they are not, not even in the same family, because humans are hyper adaptive. Utopia, like perfection is a toxic idea. there are trade offs, and the only utopia will be on a dead planet, or a blank canvas...which changes once something is put on it. fantasy is always better that reality, because it is made to suit the individual imagining it. No 2 people will imagine the same utopia, because even if they are twins, they will be too different. and we now know epigenetics are a thing.....
I realize that this nit is entirely tangential to the argument made and supports deployed, but I must pick it nonetheless, as I am pedant and disagreeable boor. I should say that otherwise, I have no disagreements with the essay and endorse it. But I find it curious that the following section is left hanging and unqualified, as if our Author agrees with it implicitly.
"What Pinker calls the tragic view is essentially Thomas Sowell's constrained vision. It sees human nature as inherently flawed, marked by selfishness, and limited in its capacity for change. Social structures that ignore, or try to eradicate, these innate tendencies, inevitably fail. Rather than trying to create a perfect society, we should focus on creating systems that mitigate and sublimate our flaws while allowing for the greatest amount of freedom and prosperity."
> We should maximize freedom and prosperity
Why? It seems to me that attempting to do this is how we got here.