Form: Critique

In Response to “Approaching The Third Rail with Eric Weinstein”

[N]either of you ever include conservative (aristocratic, martial) ethnic european (white) intellectuals in your discussions. 😉

I want to solve the problem of racial conflict. Do you. At what cost?

Your denial of the demonstrated evidence, and the explanatory science in order evade the cost of solving the problem is the only reason we can’t solve it – because the solution is not all that difficult – although it comes at a psychological cost: acceptance of status (positional) differences in sexual, social, economic, political, and evolutionary markets outgroup vs ingroup.

Yes, “Racism” is only a “software” problem between relatively equal individuals or small groups. No, it’s not only a software problem at political scale if ingroup preference is demonstrated universally (it is), by vast differences in sizes of our underclasses (there is, and it’s genetic). Where vast differences in our populations are due to vast differences in neoteny, and vast differences in the sizes of our genetic loads (underclasses) because of vast differences in the killing off of our underclasses under capital punishment, starvation, disease, war, suppression of reproductive opportunity, and the reproductive impact of monogamy under various applications of manorialism far east and far west.

The problem isn’t race per se, it’s the size of our underclasses in each race, where class is determined by difference in Neoteny (depth of maturity), IQ(neural coherence pre and postpartum), and Conscientiousness (agency), as well as accumulated defect (Genetic load). Not because people are of one race or another, but because sexes, classes, cultures, civilizations and races stick together, out of the economics (costs and benefits) of ingroup association vs outgroup association. Those of us who hold this debate seriously are in privileged classes ourselves, because of our personality traits of IQ and conscientiousness – and we are more compatible because of the utility of that privilege. While conversely the people in the middle and lower are more dependent on trust and limiting predictive differences.

So to solve this problem means ending the utility of ingroup discounts on cooperation in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war. This isn’t a psychological problem. It’s not a matter of education or beliefs. The only solution that we have discovered is Islam that drags everyone to the bottom in pursuit of equality. Conversely Chinese and Europeans both of whom practiced organized agrarian eugenics and Indians that retained the top through the cast system and the natural consequence of the upward redistribution of female reproduction sought to drag the best to the top and prevent their dilution. These are not immaterial psychological questions. They have profound consequences for present and future generations. And they have even greater consequences for those outside those classes than for those within them. Because the destiny of the middle and lower is determined as much by their upper-class production of policy as by the middle-class productivity and lower class fecundity.

The cost of solving that problem for the majority-underclass races is higher than the benefit or the ability to pay by the majority-middlecass races which means ethnic europeans and ethnic east asians alone. The only benefit we can lay claim to is the utility of political scale. But the only utility of political scale is trade policy, debt accumulation, warfare, and the use of warfare to take advantage of dictating terms of debt and trade.

And the original US constitution was designed to limit government to those three useful functions, while continuing the european tradition of normative competition between dozens if not hundreds of small states. Europe had spent a thousand years under the holy roman empire of greater Germany, with the church as a weak supreme court. The English, Italians, and north germans, had spent centuries developing rule of law, and multi-house government preserving the market for trades that they developed between states, as a market for trades between the classes within the state. The American founding fathers understood the relationship between our common law of reciprocity (tort), the natural law (tort) of political policy that resulted from it, and the application of natural law to government itself (tort), and the regulation of government, policy, court, people, and resulting markets by rule of law as Adam Smith and John Locke had argued: Adam Smith’s Moral Sentiments: the use of markets under rule of law for the production of moral character. And in doing so the founders like the puritans sought to create a moral society – a moral society by which they meant a majority if not exclusively middle-class society with what we consider middle-class manners, ethics, and morals.

And yes, that is what you will find if you courageously look at the problem. That courage is required to face the three great lies of the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-revolution against modernity by marxism, socialism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and yes, human difference denialism: lie number one in the nature of man (amoral), lie number two in the malleability of man (limited), and lie number three in the possibility of endless growth (ending scarcity). And like Freud, Boaz, and Stephen J Gould, Brett is a member of the pseudoscientific movement of, just as much as are Stiglitz and Krugman.

Successful minorities specialize in circumventing moral constraints on host populations. Gypsies specialize in petty crime, false promise, and undesirable labor. Jews specialize in false promise, profiting from baiting into hazards, allying with the state against the people, a communal, communist, socialist undermining of hierarchy, and attempting to expand amoralism. Muslims specialize in social construction. Chinese, Jews, and Gypsies practice nepotism. Europeans specialize in profiting from domesticating others by suppression of falsehood, immorality, and dysgenia (really).

So Stop Lying. No more lies. No more lies because you are too afraid of the truth. Because you fail to have the courage to face the truth. The difference between us is limited. The difference between our groups is vast. And the fact that we have a much higher ingroup affinity for evolutionary reasons, creates sexual, social, economic, political, military, and strategic conflict between us.

How can we solve it? Separation so that we produce commons suitable for differences in our distributions. And it is your attempt at preservation of these false promises – these lies -that prevents us from producing political solutions that produce commons (physical, institutional, and normative) that serve the interests of our populations.

The great crime against blacks was not slavery – everyone was subject to slaving. It was forcibly ending segregation rather than allowing it to grow irrelevant by the continued emergence of black elites, middle class, and institutions, which by now would have been complete, and have solvee the ‘software’ problem.

Regarding Evidence of Group Strategic Differences in Cognition: Bret is using the technique of the false promise of freedom from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws to buy time. “Deny and Evade” Now, what do mothers similarly do for their children? Why? What do Officers fo for their soldiers? What do prosecutors do to their witnesses? That is the difference in cultural software that has evolved into the difference in hardware.

Europeans institutionalized martial reporting, institutionalized it in court as testimony, institutionalized it as a norm as truth before face regardless of cost, and realism and naturalism and operationalism as a consequence. Why are Europeans the only people in the world to do that? And so why would someone like Charles Murray or me for that matter, limit us to the evidence rather than false promise as Brett is doing? Because it’s testifable, and warrantable, and not plausibly deniable (accountable). What Brett is saying is neither testifiable or warrantable and it’s plausibly deniable (unaccountable). That is how the cultural ‘theft’ is done. A thousand variations on false promise, baiting into hazard.

Do you think we can teach women to think and speak in testimony? Do you think we can teach Ashkenazim to think and speak in testimony? We certainly appear to be able to teach blacks. Why is that?

Only the west could develop reason rational philosophy and science, because we alone developed our militia-army and law before religion or state. There is nothing in western civilization all other peoples can’t make use of. However, the huge cost of producing non-parasitic laboring, working, and middle classes is difficult to pay, may be impossible to pay without both Christianity and the European tradition of aggressive suppression of parasitism from all walks of life, and demand for duty in all walks of life.

And may be impossible without soft eugenic suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses until the black demographic (and Hispanic and Muslim Demographics and every other community) catches up to a median of 100IQ – or realistically, a 105, since that appears to be the natural median (where we can learn on our own by reading).

As for our ability to ‘change’ history is populated with beneficial changes from policy, law, and education. It’s easy to fix the current problems. It’s impossible to do it under universal enfranchisement democracy.

I specialize in truth and deceit, and in particular, sex and group differences in truth and deceit. No more lies. These false promises only prevent us from achieving solutions that are hard to face but beneficial.