Could You Possibly Clarify Your Position on ‘Racism’?

–“Hey Curt could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

OK. Let’s try.

—“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

—“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

—“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

—“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other.

Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically.

If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands.

The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people.

So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

–“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I don’t know how to answer that question.

You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns.

But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon.

The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race.

Thanks brother 😉

Leave a Reply