. . .

Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’?

I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Thanks brother 😉

Leave a Reply