sofiechan home

Race in America

anon_cera said in #3830 2w ago: received

I know we want to be high brow here but forgive me anons.

I run into this type of conversation often

Me: Democrats are racialists and I think it's bad to engage in a racial spoils system in a multi-racial democracy.

Normie: But isn't it obvious that America mistreats its blacks? Look at the racial gaps in wealth/jail

Me: No I don't believe that's due to mistreatment.

Normie: But what else could it be? How could there be these large persistent differences?

-----------

Some people suggest that here is when you lie to them or tell them a half truth about culture or whatever. I find this unconvincing and I think my interlocutor does too, though they can't exactly put their finger on why. But if I go down the genetics route, I very often just lose the friendship entirely.

I care about this issue because I believe it is at the core of many disputes we have and underlies people's loss of faith in democracy (both on the right and left). To an egalitarian who has a blank slate view about matters of the mind, the fact of large differences between races that people routinely accept is quite abhorrent. If I accepted that factual premise, I would also come to view rightists as cold and heartless. The blank slate view implies millions of my black countrymen are in jail due to "society" or some social factor that a majority of my countrymen are not interested in solving. Even blaming it on culture doesn't exactly solve the problem because why do european /asian ethnic groups merge into the more functional American culture but blacks don't?

I am operating from a place of love for my country and its institutions and its people. I am not a monarchist, not a racialist, still believe in race blind meritocracy being superior etc. I want to know, tactically, what is the way to put down false ideas regarding race held by Americans in a way that does not lead to me endorsing racial separatism. If it's not possible, please state why. I can be convinced America cannot continue to be structured the way it is and also speak frankly about racial facts. But I'd prefer to find a tactical way out of letting a giant lie dominate our politics while keeping America's structure fundamentally the same.

referenced by: >>3834 >>3843 >>3851 >>3877

I know we want to be received

pelopidas said in #3832 2w ago: received

You cannot profess a heresy without upsetting the believers. There is no clever phrasing where you deny their tenets but disclaim it in a way that makes them feel fine.

If you don't want to lie then I'd suggest not talking about this subject with normies. You don't have to get into the racialist structure of the empire when you're hanging out with your buddies. If you want to fight this fight then yes pick your battles and stop charging uselessly into the enemy's guns alongside the Light Brigade. Very few people are convinced of things like this by direct argument, most take their cues from other parts of society which are perceived as more legitimate, and certain parts of that superstructure are more or less amenable to argument. Direct your efforts there, instead.

To the extent that talking about this is important for changing the culture, the discourse that matters isn't what you say to your mother-in-law over dinner, it's the elite opinion-setting discourse in upstream platforms. 2025's arguments in niche groupchats and forums and generative cliques (hey guys) becomes 2026's fads on Twitter and Substack which becomes 2027's consensus views pushed in books and TV. *That's* the stuff that will convince your mother-in-law, not getting into a politics argument while you're taking your daughter to the playground. See Samo Burja's essay sequence (four essays, starts at https://samoburja.com/intellectual-legitimacy/) for more.

I've got a few relatives who can actually listen to me on this stuff, and I'll get into it if they ask me about it when it's just us, but when everyone is libbing out at Thanksgiving I'll just shut up. I'm not going to say anything I think is false but I don't need to interject, beyond maybe sharing a knowing look with my brother-in-law. Some of them read my essays, most don't. But the people whose opinions matter *do* read my essays, and that's ten thousand times more important than whether my aunt does.

You cannot profess a received

anon_cera said in #3833 2w ago: received

I have acted as you suggest for 10 years or so. I am finding this less and less tenable for a few reasons:

1. If one wants to run for political office, one needs to be able to articulate this matter in a palatable way. I know political office and democracy may be frowned upon in these parts, but if it's an assumed goal, one needs to have an answer for why one's not concerned by racial disparities etc. Here, the tactical right wing lying seems weak, but maybe it's the best we can do. Who knows.

2. Women are vigorous enforcers of orthodoxy. In modern America, this means a very substantial number of women believe this and can't partner up with a heretic who otherwise shares their values and goals. Avoiding the topic entirely probably also means avoiding politics entirely. How often is that going to work with smart women in the year 2025? I think there is a large gap here between men and women, won't you think of the tfr anon?!

3. Your point about trend setting discourse is only partly correct. Although much has changed in the last 10 years, people are still unwilling to say out loud certain facts in public. This means your typical normie can safely ignore our online trend setting discourse as merely the chatter of internet trolls because they have never met a decent respectable person in real life who agrees. People are not convinced by argument, but they're also not convinced by mere internet discourse.

referenced by: >>3835 >>3878

I have acted as you received

anon_qyxy said in #3834 2w ago: received

>>3830
Well there's a few separate things going on here. One is that you're talking to people about a matter of sacred political taboo. You're simply not going to get rational thought about sacred taboos, that's the whole point: to freeze thought in some area with some contradictory but basically workable settlement that lets us move past the gaping abyss of existential conflict that would otherwise be there, often literally the last war. In this case

The second problem is that you don't actually have a working solution to that gaping abyss. Race blind meritocracy is outside the overton window, meaning what actually happens when that's on the table is unknown. Whether it works is unknown, whether it's even ok to talk about is unknown. It might be a very slippery slope back into de-facto white supremacy and actual persecution of minorities. It might mean takeover by SAT-optimized Chinese striver kids from CCP families. It might utterly dissolve into cynical ethnic conflict as any basis for elite cohesion or noblesse oblige evaporates. We don't know, and we aren't so scared yet of the racial apocalypse that we want to find out.

So what's the best way tactically to put down bad ideas? This isn't a tactical problem. It's a strategic one. It's about the existential nature of the polity and to what extent we're in a race war with our neighbors. Any change is going to be explosive and probably violent. The status quo is a slow slide into racial violence anyways. Me I don't think multiracialism is workable without a de-facto supremacy or at least a cohesive non-meritocratic elite that's going to impose a stable settlement that basically works. I think the current path of implicit racial degeneration is worse than the open racism that at least fights out the issue and finds a new settlement that might work.

IMO we can start by getting more people to give up on the failing taboos, at least discussing the issue in private, with friends, anonymously online, etc. No point engaging stubborn friends on this. Feel them out and if they can't take it, back off and find other things to talk about. IMO their views should be deconstructed ruthlessly and relentlessly in public discourse by anonymous racists, ideally at very high levels of quality, but it's foolish and impolite to risk your friendships by pushing too hard on political disagreements.

Like any religious revolution, the important work is to build a worldview that might actually work among the people who are willing and interested in doing that, preach it to those willing to hear, deconstruct those who would argue against it, and protect that project from persecution by the failing mainstream.

This is a good topic for us because we are willing friends especially interested in these matters, and anonymous enough to have a frank discussion. What we don't have is a clear answer, IMO.

referenced by: >>3878

Well there's a few s received

anon_qyxy said in #3835 2w ago: received

>>3833
Yeah if we're doing politics, we're going to need a good and honest party line. What's the party line on race relations? I dunno let's figure it out here.

Despite my reasons for not believing in it, race-blind meritocracy is a good start. People are different by nature and culture and its on them to figure their shit out. Public politics doesn't concern itself with uplifting every individual to outcome equality, and it especially shouldn't for races or organized identity groups. They should instead be encouraged to shut up about their ethnic grievances and assimilate as individual citizens instead. Many formerly alienated minorities have assimilated and done well by their own efforts, and some haven't. That's ok. We should neither help them nor hinder them as groups except in response to specific acute crimes done by them or against them.

Even that exception is questionable: are we going to have a court where we can try the blacks collectively for bad behavior? Then let's not convict the white man or the jew of oppressing or subverting, especially when the charge is at this point so vague as to be unprovable. The only collective identities worth seriously treating short of some kind of legal revolution is citizenship. Citizenship should have real teeth, and take on a lot of the political us-vs-them energy that race has right now. That means mass deportation of illegals, hard questions about the loyalties of dual citizen israeli-americans, etc.

Immigration should *not* be race-blind. It should be quite racist in favor of groups that are the most likely to assimilate well and contribute positively. This is the *least* inflammatory to our own domestic racial settlement. Do you think black Americans want Haitain neighbors any more than you do? The question is how we get along among ourselves. We are not obligated to also consider the rest of the world with racial blinders on.

This has problems, and it would be a hell of a fight to get there from here, but it's a lot more coherent than what we have.

>women are vigorous enforcers of orthodoxy
Make sure your woman can handle your hardest racism. If she's the type to enforce regime orthodoxy against you, I'm sorry to say she's unsuitable as a wife for anyone. A woman's proper loyalty is to her husband. The marriage is completely screwed if she's drunk on that kind of power. If all women were like that I would completely agree with the people who say marriage is an unacceptably bad deal in the modern day. I'm usually the "get married and boost the TFR" guy, but I'm realizing that's strictly conditional on finding a woman who isn't going to try to enforce orthodoxy on you.

referenced by: >>3842 >>3857 >>3867 >>3876

Yeah if we're doing received

anon_gygu said in #3837 2w ago: received

Agreed with the poster above that the discussion of taboo and heresy is what makes platforms like this powerful but racism itself now feels like a failing taboo, judging by how much more racist social media has become in the past few years. "Spreading awareness" isn't really important at this stage because it seems to have breached containment. Whether it takes five more years or ten more years to become pervasive isn't important either in the grand scheme of things. What is more important, for reasons I will go into shortly, is that this kind of "racial realism, not racialism OK" that OP does is only a superficial negation of taboo, and it is exactly here where the most work needs to be done. Not Thanksgiving.

I think the real gains are to be found in the taboos of the graphsposters, whose arguments are currently winning out in the public sphere, because the "gaps" or weak points in their worldview are where the most interesting intellectual inqueries can be found. That's dialectics.

The anon above made an allusion to this but the concept of meritocracy itself has to be dethroned, at least in the current form Americans conceptualize that term. Currently, meritocracy carries rhetorical weight because it presents itself as the less-racist answer to the racial spoils system in place right now, which is a system that denies its own nature and wears the mask of meritocracy. But the fact that the argument between these factions boils down to "who is less racist, you or me?" rather than "how can I represent my interests in the public sphere?" goes to show how unreconstructed most Americans are--even if they believe the loony woke left have gone bananas, such as OP. Replacing "equitable meritocracy" with "race blind meritocracy" is a deferral of the question--literal blindness--on the most important question in politics: which group is *entitled* to elite *privileges*? This is a question that equitable meritocrats have a clear and honest answer to. Everyone knows that the mechanisms of meritocracy can be gamed. The equitable meritocrats simply have a much more honest answer to that fact than the racially blind meritocrats.

The Amarnites were ahead of their time in redefining meritocracy as global imperial rule by psychopathic patriarchal Aryan anime vampires. Are the arguments against this kind of meritocracy anything but woke packaged under another name? Is this meritocracy one that Cremieux and his ilk find palatable? I don't think so... but their dead faiths are buried deeper than George Floyd.

referenced by: >>3839 >>3842

Agreed with the post received

anon_vine said in #3839 2w ago: received

The United States is significantly less concerned with race than that of other countries. That it allows schools like Howard to exist (rather than all schools being of the State) shows its tolerance.

I get along with my neighbors regardless of color since we are all stable homeowners. Now if people who speak only Spanish start moving in, as I've seen around some automotive shops, that may cause some conflict simply due to lack of similar language. I feel that I cannot understand them, nor them of me.

There are fairly large problems regarding race. I will try to mention a few of them, not targeting anyone specifically.

There are segments of the white race in America that behaves in ways that alienate others, such as Sam Altman saying India cannot build AI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtMsG2UtMUU). The hostility to Mamdani may have similar origins. Trump's deportations or situations such as what happened with George Floyd cannot help. This may be of great concern in the future when considering the demographics of the United States but the world more generally. I feel Europeans are fairly immune to this criticism due to the great northern civil war amongst themselves.

Though I've fortunately not found myself in court, if a defense is based upon verbal arguments then it may advantage Jews (https://old.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/15vic4s/why_are_jews_so_funny/jwws3k3/) and Blacks due to culture. If it becomes written and documented evidence, it may favor other groups. There is also concern of numerous Chinese becoming prominent in society simply by nature of manipulating symbols on written tests because that may not be a feature of good executive capacity.

Something I found strange during university was how readily certain groups derided the government. The professor would go, "there are two parties and one is stupid and the other is evil and they come together sometimes to do something stupid and evil." It may be that certain groups are supportive of a strong central government, others of a weak central government, an argument going as far back as Henry and Madison.

Some groups may be more attuned to the building of cities, others to emotions and consumption. We see that the division among races is not so clear-cut for there are negative connotation groups of each.

Part of the decline in the American capacity is the movement from written means of communication to verbal and emotional, which is derided as "White supremacy culture." https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/uploads/4/3/5/7/43579015/okun_-_white_sup_culture_2020.pdf#page=4.26

>>3837
I'm not sure there's that much of a spoils system anymore considering the youth unemployment, but maybe the higher chance for opportunities by nature of simply being in a certain network? There was a Palladium piece talking about that (https://www.palladiummag.com/2025/06/30/economic-nihilism/). And if somebody comes from a poor family into those societies, they likely don't have the culture or background to keep up with those used to globetrotting from a young age and watching their father's business deals. Moreover, faculty positions at well-known schools pay less, banking on that prestige.

referenced by: >>3840

The United States is received

anon_vine said in #3840 2w ago: received

>>3839

I do feel Europe gave us the best parts of its culture, but you only see that in the top universities and high schools. Students today only seem to begrudgingly learn an instrument, and they seem more attuned to whatever movie or drama is going on the internet. That the Atlantic culture has failed to influence the rest of society, instead being confined to specific regions and classes, is a large regret for me.

I do feel Europe gav received

anon_qyxy said in #3842 2w ago: received

>>3837
>The equitable meritocrats simply have a much more honest answer to that fact than the racially blind meritocrats.
>The Amarnites were ahead of their time in redefining meritocracy as global imperial rule by psychopathic patriarchal Aryan anime vampires.
"Woke more correct" etc and the only people actually outdoing them are the unapologetic supremacists. Radical as it is, the Armarnite party line is more compelling in that way than the political compromise I outlined above in >>3835. The race blind meritocracy party line may be a workable coalition compromise, but it would be exactly that: a negotiated compromise that more radical parties might come to after a fight, not a vanguard position. So this gets to the key question: are we interested in a moderate coalition party line, or a radical faith?

The problem with talking about compromises only is that you end up splitting the difference between your proposed compromise and the woke extremists. It's actually worse than that: no one is getting riled up to fight for a compromise so for lack of energy you don't even get a good deal for it. Better to have your own wing of extremists to play bad cop and create political energy through inspiring consistency. If we're destined for compromise instead of war, compromise between woke meritocracy and teenage aryan psychopath meritocracy sounds better than between woke and woke from 15 years ago, which is how we got into this mess.

I didn't understand what you're saying about the graphposter racism taboos. Do you just mean we have to actually poke through the "liberalism with crime statistics" inanity and get to radical matters? Can you spell it out a bit more for us?

referenced by: >>3855 >>3857

"Woke more correct" received

phaedrus said in #3843 2w ago: received

>>3830
I've come to the conclusion that trying to convert people to more accurate opinions on these topics is extremely high risk and low reward in one's IRL circles. Unless you want to be cannon fodder in a decades-long culture war slogging towards a more sane society, don't put yourself out on a limb in situations where it's going to blow back at you. Don't be a martyr.

Online anon discussions can be very high leverage in changing these taboos and shifting the opinions of smart elites, but I don't believe that there is any foolproof strategy to solving this issue.

I've come to the con received

anon_tezi said in #3851 2w ago: received

>>3830
Never address this subject head on, but do bring up adjacent topics and let people's minds fill in the implications. E.g. you can discuss the scientific basis for IQ without necessarily broaching any taboos. If nothing else, you will leave them better informed and closer to the truth on an important subject.

Never address this s received

anon_kaha said in #3854 2w ago: received

Anons have already pointed out the root of the matter as the higher cultural forces above any of us and how individual engagement with that is useless, etc.

But for the conversational part, it's good to find a way to express your dissidence in an effective way, lest you repress your thoughts and be made to feel socially impotent. Or let it slip out over too many drinks, which is ever too catastrophic. One framing I find more convincing to the normie context is something like

"Yeah, there are totally factors that influence the way people act, but that's also the case for everyone else! Say a guy gets molested when they're young and then they go on to commit rape (real phenomenon), does that justify it?"

That way, you're questioning the sanctity of certain racial groups at large, rather than suggesting an inherent badness to any one of them (which crosses the line). You also frame yourself as being concerned about rape victims, which helps neutralize the controversy of the point. It's interesting to see how women grapple with that one; there's a real paradox between women's rights advocacy and blind minority absolution. You can connect it to that, maybe pull out one of those European rapes-by-nationality chart lol.

You want to stay within the bounds of slightly conservative guy who progressive girls would still safely sleep with, you don't want to stray race scientist chud territory.

Anons have already p received

anon_gygu said in #3855 2w ago: received

>>3842

By graphs-posters I mean the HBD-sphere that fights against affirmative action or equity and inclusion by arguing for meritocracy using the aforementioned graphs. They do not possess worldviews capable of seeing human capital ("human capital" itself is freakish newspeak) as something beyond IQ, GDP, crime statistics, or the other quantitative tools of their trade.

Guarding against "liberalism with crime statistics" comes close to the matter but not its heart. I think that, over the past fifteen or so years, most people who developed some intuition for American racial dynamics were only capable of criticizing them through the lens of current civic American religion, which is to say that current policies have damaged our "social fabric" (who is we, what do these people owe each other, and why?), and destroyed the American dream of getting ahead through your own smarts. Perhaps most post-1900 arrivals (guilty here) arrived here for that, but they probably could have found that in the alleyways of any Jewish or Italian quarter in the Mediterranean, which is what New York City turned into writ large. I think the American dream circa 1783 had much more to do with embossing one's mark upon a primordial land, continuing the dream of an eternal Rome, or building a miniature cult-sized Rome if that didn't work out. When you shift out of that first frame and into this second, Meritocracy as the the whore of unhasty, slick academic opitimizers becomes a hateful prospect and the university system an oppressive institution by default.

Contrary Pancakes is one of the few thinkers who has almost destroyed liberal artifacts from his intellectual method and replaced it with something solid, and in doing so he has just about abolished America, at least in the way we understand it. That was the only way he could have come up with an idea like "If 'Foundational Black Americans' want to be American they need to find some way of affirming slavery, since that is the reason they are here to begin with." On the one hand, the logic here completely inverts the current conception of "I am a black American but cannot affirm slavery, my foundational relationship with the State is that of a victor of a slave revolt and I am entitled to earnings as such." On the other, were you and I or probably any self-respecting black man faced with that choice we would find the whole concept unpalatable, perhaps because of our modern morality or our simple pride. But my intuition is that this is how many black freedmen interpreted the events that brought them to this country. I'd have to look into it more. Imagine a civic religion that celebrates slavers and enslaved as cocreators of the South. It's nearly unthinkable. Suffice it to say it's easier to imagine the end of America than the end of Boomer civic religion.

As I said earlier I am not necessarily endorsing the views above, even if on their face there is less perversion than the Olympic games that ritually maintain our current system.

But I think you don't get interesting places intellectually by skewering libtards using liberal mores. You get it by poking apart the beliefs of the people nominally in your own coalition, for your own purposes, using completely alien ethical systems that you believe to contain interesting artifacts. This involves a certain degree of cunning and cruelty, but also epistemic humility as well. There is something profoundly unadversarial among our "interesting thinkers" today; they have mostly reached consensus. Only by plunging a knife into our most sacred cows like equality under the law, fair play, meritocracy, the rule of law, human dignity, the right to life, the right to death, the sacrality of property rights--and seeing which ones survive--can we get anywhere.

referenced by: >>3857 >>3881

By graphs-posters I received

anon_cera said in #3857 2w ago: received

>>3855

> This involves a certain degree of cunning and cruelty, but also epistemic humility as well. There is something profoundly unadversarial among our "interesting thinkers" today; they have mostly reached consensus.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But there are different peoples here with different goals. The consensus that's been reached among intellectuals over the last 20 years needs to be propagated out while the serious people do the non-consensual (heh) thinking. The overton window has gradually shfited over decades but then dramatically accelerated once Elon purchased twitter in '22. It is perhaps not as futile and reckless to expand these gains into the real world. I'm concerned with ordinary stuff like the power plant operating well, air traffic controllers being competent, schools not infecting kids with resentment, criminals being put away etc.

I am personally not convinced by the ethnostate arguments, but I have nothing against someone trying them out. I just don't see them being very successful in American politics right now. I'm more willing to listen though if you can make the argument that ethnostates (and the attendant worldview) are the only way criminals are going to be put away, I would happily listen.

>>3842
>The problem with talking about compromises only is that you end up splitting the difference between your proposed compromise and the woke extremists. It's actually worse than that: no one is getting riled up to fight for a compromise so for lack of energy you don't even get a good deal for it.

1. I don't know how useful it is going to be for me to argue things I don't actually believe just so I can reach a better settlement. It might be useful to highlight the alternative regime to the compromise I'm offering, that I agree with.

2. You can't even offer the *compromise* because you can't say it out loud. I am trying to see how to go about saying it out loud.

>>3835
I like this post. I think making citizenship have more teeth is an important component here. But I have to disagree here
>Make sure your woman can handle your hardest racism. If she's the type to enforce regime orthodoxy against you, I'm sorry to say she's unsuitable as a wife for anyone.
There aren't enough women like what you're describing. My bros can't even say out loud charles murray tier stuff to their gfs. There is a big gap between where men and women stand right now and it's probably a cause of decent amount intersexual conflict. If you believed the egalitarian worldview sincerely, wouldn't you find your boyfriend, who professes love and mercy for his fellow man, abhorrent for not caring about the racial gaps? The women are being quite reasonable given what they believe about the world and the men are essentially liars.

My current view is to continue professing love and mercy (because it's correct) but also just start telling the truth on stuff that's mostly consensus.

referenced by: >>3859

I don't disagree wit received

anon_qyxy said in #3859 2w ago: received

>>3857
> There aren't enough women like what you're describing. My bros can't even say out loud charles murray tier stuff to their gfs.
I’m sorry for your loss. Most of the women i know, often from liberal backgrounds, are quite ok with their men’s unorthodox politics.
> If you believed the egalitarian worldview sincerely, wouldn't you find your boyfriend, who professes love and mercy for his fellow man, abhorrent for not caring about the racial gaps?
Yes all very subjectively reasonable given the insane premise but you have to understand those women are in the grips of a cult. That stuff is all nonsense. I am saying don’t marry a woman who is more committed to a nonsense worldview than she is to you. Its just a transparently bad idea. They aren’t so hegemonic as you think.

You are right though that the increasing divergence between men and women is a serious problem. How do we get through to the normie woman in particular? It’s not like women are inherently lefty but they respond to what is apparently winning and fashionable. Women supported hitler’s rise bigtime for example. I don't think it’s about rational argument. It’s about who is confidently dominating the public sphere.

There is also a deeper problem here with women being professional instead of familial. Its very hard to have a sane worldview when your whole social situation is an unsustainable aberration, and very hard for men and women to come to same conclusions if they are alienated from each other like this.

referenced by: >>3881

I’m sorry for your l received

anon_hysa said in #3867 2w ago: received

>>3835
>are we going to have a court where we can try the blacks collectively for bad behavior? Then let's not convict the white man or the jew of oppressing or subverting, especially when the charge is at this point so vague as to be unprovable.

Hold on, there might be a modest proposal in here. Let’s say we *do* get a guy with a robe and a wig to oversee trials for the Blacks and the Whites and the Jews. We’ll have a prosecutor to specify exactly what bad behavior they’re alleged to have perpetrated and marshal the evidence. We’ll have a defense attorney to rebut or excuse the allegations. Put all the best evidence and arguments together. Get a verdict and make it public. We don’t need any sentences—not clear what that would even mean—we can just do a truth and reconciliation thing.

Is this retarded? Probably. But it seems like an interesting type of retarded to me.

referenced by: >>3869

Hold on, there might received

anon_qyxy said in #3869 2w ago: received

>>3867
Truth and reconciliation is always a sham. Who gets to run the trial? But yeah it would be fun to do it for real. How do you keep mossad from wrecking the whole thing? Litigants are all anonymous, maybe, and run on secured infrastructure. Maybe we should run it yearly. It would be great fun.

Truth and reconcilia received

anon_miho said in #3876 2w ago: received

>>3835

> Despite my reasons for not believing in it, race-blind meritocracy is a good start

Race-Blind Meritocracy Is All You Need.

The key is to define and operationalize "merit" correctly. There are simplistic and degenerate conceptions of merit that produce bad results; most obviously, the Confucian idea of sorting by test score.

Merit under Gnon is best approximated via markets. Where market pressure is intense and immediate, you see reasonably effective meritocracy today. Take startup world: the best founders are not SAT-maxxers. Nor do you see YC doing the med school thing where they brag that their latest batch is 50% Women of Color. Neither of those perversions of merit work in a non-centrally-planned, genuinely competitive environment.

What you get, under sufficient market discipline, is a good-enough approximation of true merit. The winners are diverse, but with an unequal distribution by race and nationality. The lib catechism that "greatness can come from anywhere" is shown to be largely true, while the Blank Slate readily debunked.

Defined in this vein, race-blind meritocracy is a foundational American idea and has served us well.

We are also well-positioned to ride the pendulum back to this convenient attractor. The Left overplayed their hand grotesquely and have provided a living "reductio ad absurdum" of their own ideas--for example, the currently-in-med-school cohorts of DEI doctors that will plague the land in the coming years. People are sick of racialism and will be for a good while. We can use this opportunity to implement and entrench a better way. Study Rufo.

> The only collective identities worth seriously treating short of some kind of legal revolution is citizenship

Correct.

> Immigration should *not* be race-blind. It should be quite racist

No. You were right the first time. There is no realistic future where we can explicitly preference by race.

Luckily, we don't need to.

The status quo system already gates immigration by nationality. We can double down and do it smarter and more thoroughly. Expand quotas for countries with high human capital. Reduce quotas for countries at odds with Western values. Enforce nationality quotas across *all* visa categories--in particular, the chain-migration Family Reunification visa--not just for the few categories that have them today.

For H1B, replace the idiotic lottery mechanism with an auction. This kills Infosys and other Indian body shops overnight and turns the visa into a kind of "O1 lite", a mechanism to poach real talent.

--

My unified point is that Race-Blind Meritocracy a compelling and useful legitimacy narrative. It worked for Lee Kuan Yew and it will work for us. And at root, it is the truth. Gnon likes winners. Gnon operates fractally. The nation with the mandate of heaven is not just the strongest or smartest, but the most adaptable and the one that curates the highest level of competition with itself.

referenced by: >>3882 >>3885

Race-Blind Meritocra received

anon_cepe said in #3877 2w ago: received

>>3830
I think the fact that the democrats succeeded in creating an educated black middle class/bourgeoise belies your point somewhat about the possibilities for changing outcomes for racial groups.

I think the fact tha received

anon_cepe said in #3878 2w ago: received

>>3833
I miss the days when people argued about object level things instead of just endlessly handwringing about tactics that'll never be used and psychologizing all the people who'd get in your way as an excuse.

>>3834
>Race blind meritocracy is outside the overton window, meaning what actually happens when that's on the table is unknown.
What are you talking about the supreme court struck down affirmative action, the race blind meritocracy basically won.

>So what's the best way tactically to put down bad ideas? This isn't a tactical problem. It's a strategic one. It's about the existential nature of the polity and to what extent we're in a race war with our neighbors. Any change is going to be explosive and probably violent. The status quo is a slow slide into racial violence anyways.
Well you're right it's a strategic one but its a strategy premised on a fantasy. Even the BLM riots were less racialized than all the shit that happened in the 70s through the 90s.

I miss the days when received

anon_cepe said in #3881 2w ago: received

>>3855
>I'd have to look into it more. Imagine a civic religion that celebrates slavers and enslaved as cocreators of the South. It's nearly unthinkable. Suffice it to say it's easier to imagine the end of America than the end of Boomer civic religion.
Most white southerners were not slave holders, and although I'm sure many radlibs would like to focus on general white complicity in slavery, a "civic religion" doesn't require you to celebrate each and every one of your ancestors, just enough to be included in the symbol for the citizen/people. Or, otherwise, some ritual/code of acting that includes you through assimilation. The Maoists rehabilitated the former emperor as an ordinary worker, after all.

I also don't think we have any shortage of thinkers today that love to embrace the nihilistic destruction of every fruit that civilization has brought us. BAP is probably an excellent example, whose thought amounts to a petulant rebellion against all order as a symbol of patriarchal authority, which isn't so different from what the other queer theorists are doing it just so happened his dad was a communist.

>>3859
Here's your contradiction, if women are fundamentally just followers of the existing order, and the whole social situation is unstainable, that would imply the existing order is also unsustainable. The reason everyone finds Charles Murray quoting racialists less tolerable than woke racialists is exactly because the 19th and 20th century scientific racialism was already exposed as being an unsustainable aberration, hence the meta-positioning isn't irrational for women or anyone else. If you want to expose the aberrant nature of the existing order, you have to propose a more fundamental order.

referenced by: >>3883

Most white southerne received

anon_cera said in #3882 2w ago: received

>>3876
I like the idea of a race blind meritocracy. But is it possible in practice to accomplish if we publicly pay lip service to the egalitarian worldview? I think no. In my thesis, the reason why the libs have so much power behind their arguments is that every respectable person publicly acknowledges these two premises 1. we should treat people fairly, not merely as members of a race and 2. every race is equal in innate dispositions

From these premises, it's easy to conclude everything in the progressive worldview. In fact you sound shady if you publicly acknowledge these premises (or at least fail to openly reject them) but then conclude nothing needs to be done about different outcomes by race. You sound like an untrustworthy person hiding things or perhaps a greedy person unconcerned with a fair and just society.

Some people negate both premises. They conclude from negating (2) that actually (1) also is not possible or desirable. I don't think that follows, I still think (1) is important. I think it's possible and desirable to truly love your fellow citizens. So how do we gracefully negate (2) and still have a functioning civilization afterwards? Is it enough to profess love for all the races but openly say there is no evidence of their equality on all traits?

referenced by: >>3884

I like the idea of a received

anon_gygu said in #3883 2w ago: received

>>3881

It's funny you bring up Maoists because Zizek has an old article on how the disavowl of one's origins--in this case, the Soviet disavowal of Stalin in contrast with the affirmation of Mao in China--seeded the Party's collapse of legitimacy. As long as slavery and Yankee-style racism like the Liberian project are seen as "ontological evils" as the breadtubers would say, it will be impossible to see the founding stock of this country as true compatriots. The minimalist claim that they "made mistakes we must correct" (most go much farther than that) is a justification for the permanent revolution in private life we have been subjected to since the right to free association was abolished. The fact that more highways are named after MLK than say, John C. Calhoun is a visual example of the new founding that took place after the New Dealers rose to power.

I will not address your other points in the rest of the post chain because I think the average poster here can see through them without effort. All I will say is that, through implication, a reading of Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy will show you that the 19th and 20th century eugenics movement was coincident with a revival of interest in ancient Greek culture, particularly in Germany, and not by accident.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v32/n20/slavoj-zizek/can-you-give-my-son-a-job?fbclid=IwY2xjawLrasZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHjGYJRA3jQLJq2pCEt5fE8iob0G4Dgt0Snvk3CWk6oL3fgK7QxCuQ7tYohmT_aem_9CatSIn1FjAyoyyIdYVAHQ

referenced by: >>3894

It's funny you bring received

xenophon said in #3884 2w ago: received

>>3882
> ... So how do we gracefully negate (2) and still have a functioning civilization afterwards?...

The guys at Aporia Magazine have pushed on this point, rejecting (2) without cultural or political polemics.

Potential counterpoint: BAP has argued that it is not important, or even helpful, to publicly reject (2). The reason is that the progressive orientation does not actually come from a sincere belief in (2). They espouse (2) in a merely instrumental way, because it is a useful support for their more fundamental goal of siding with non-Europeans. If you were to definitively refute (2), say through some new breakthrough in genetics, progressives would not at all cease to side with non-Europeans. They would just use the new knowledge as a new justification for affirmative action: we must aid the genetically disadvantaged on Rawlsian grounds.

It might seem hard to believe that progressives would flip on what today seems such a fundamental point as (2), but they absolutely would. If you want an example of a progressive who is ahead of the curve and has staked out just such a position, have a look at Freddie deBoer.

referenced by: >>3889

The guys at Aporia M received

anon_gygu said in #3885 2w ago: received

>>3876

YCs brag about "scaling" and hiring 30-150 people in one year to mill around while two engineers carry the whole company on its shoulders. That's how they signal "the market" (since real people embedded within the context of the real world do not exist, apparently) to give them more money.

YCs brag about "scal received

anon_cera said in #3889 2w ago: received

>>3884
Thanks that's helpful.

I guess I don't see how even the Rawlsian argument gets you to race communism. As I understand, Rawls wants you to act in such a way that the well being of the worst off person is maximized. This doesn't necessarily mean that the lowest person needs to be given power and wealth equal to the best, in fact it probably means he shouldn't given what we can anticipate about the consequences of that.

Now, there is a funny little quirk here. If "well being" is defined as some sort of subjective feeling that takes into account social status, then it's possible that equality is what is mandated by Rawls. Social status is zero sum and being low on society's power/status ladder makes you feel bad. The person lower, even if he knows he is materially better off being low and his country is better off this way, he is envious of those with better and would prefer to be materially worse off but equal to his betters.

If this is the argument progs ultimately make when we have collective rejection of premise (2), it seems easy enough to defeat. It's nakedly resentful and envious as opposed to just being surreptitiously resentful (as is the case now).

referenced by: >>3891

Thanks that's helpfu received

xenophon said in #3891 2w ago: received

>>3889
> ... I don't see how even the Rawlsian argument gets you to race communism.

Stop thinking that any of this is about those arguments. That's my point. Progressives favor non-Europeans for psychological and cultural reasons, and the justifying political arguments are recruited later.

I didn't mean they're going to literally open Rawls' Theory of Justice and begin reasoning. I just mentioned Rawls to suggest the flavor of an argument based on genetic disadvantage, which they would totally make, if they were deprived of their current arguments.

Stop thinking that a received

anon_cepe said in #3894 2w ago: received

>>3883
>It's funny you bring up Maoists because Zizek has an old article on how the disavowl of one's origins--in this case, the Soviet disavowal of Stalin in contrast with the affirmation of Mao in China--seeded the Party's collapse of legitimacy. As long as slavery and Yankee-style racism like the Liberian project are seen as "ontological evils" as the breadtubers would say, it will be impossible to see the founding stock of this country as true compatriots
Note how the Soviets did indeed disavow a lot of the Russian historical figures, just as, even today, in China there are debates on what the worth/value of historical figures like Cao Cao or Liu Biao are. Mao, for example, was a big Cao Cao fan. People always pick and choose what they want from history, as you're even doing right now!

>a reading of Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy will show you that the 19th and 20th century eugenics movement was coincident with a revival of interest in ancient Greek culture, particularly in Germany, and not by accident.
Of course it's not by accident, Germany and Prussia were hereditary aristocracies that were self-consciously trying to preserve feudal traditions in the face of capitalist modernity. BAP's reading isn't even esoteric, it's the exoteric Prussian reading of the Greeks more or less, which got buried because those values literally drove Prussian society insane! That's what every attempt to reject slave morality inevitably leads to, by the way, the glorification of psychopathic qualities.

referenced by: >>3898

Note how the Soviets received

anon_gygu said in #3898 2w ago: received

>>3894

To say that there is no difference between the Soviet state, a regime which explicitly dissolved the institutions of Russian statehood and legitimacy, and replaced it with a party state, disavowing the imperial autocrats and disavowing original Bolsheviks like Stalin, is absurd. To then compare this with the communist Chinese relationship to their state's origins is also absurd. What about this is complicated to understand? The Soviet state is established and the previous state is discredited. 40 years later, one of its most important founding leaders is completely discredited as a mass murderer. In China the communist state is established. Sun Yat Sen is seen as a misguided hero who paved the way for real revolution, but imperial China's legitimacy is out of question, it is discredited. After Mao dies he is seen to have been excessive but is still regarded as a great leader and sage. He has nowhere near the same level of controversy as Stalin. Unlike the Soviets by 1989, the Chinese state does not publish documents showing its own complicity in war crimes and implicating its own founders in mass murder. Do you see the difference?

Regarding your second point: describing an entire society's hiearchy of values as mental illness is not an argument. What exactly is your argument? Military defeats are temporary. All the objectives of the 1848 revolutions were achieved, for example, and yet they were defeated in their day. Similarly, all politics after Hitler is a rearguard action against the society he represented. Which explains the constant handwringing of psychoanalysts after the war over the origins of totalitarianism, by the way. One wonders whether they were describing mental illness or natural law.

referenced by: >>3900

To say that there is received

anon_cepe said in #3900 2w ago: received

>>3898
>To say that there is no difference between the Soviet state, a regime which explicitly dissolved the institutions of Russian statehood and legitimacy, and replaced it with a party state, disavowing the imperial autocrats and disavowing original Bolsheviks like Stalin, is absurd.
I'm not disputing Zizek's point, if you actually read what I'm saying. Kruschev disavowing Stalin was different from what the chinese did, but that's exactly why your point about needing to honor your "original stock" is stupid. Stalin was a part of the official state ideology of the Soviets, and therefore discrediting him discredited them. As far as the liberal american establishment goes, they don't see discrediting southern slavers or even Washington and Jefferson as discrediting the American project precisely to the extent they see a "new refounding" in Lincoln or FDR or the civil rights act or whatever, just as you say. Certainly, there are radical liberals who /want/ to see a total discrediting because they want to feel radical, that's how you get stuff like the 1619 project. You can't have it both ways, either there was a new refounding in which case the ideology discrediting the slavers isn't discrediting to the modern liberal democratic state, or there wasn't.

>Regarding your second point: describing an entire society's hiearchy of values as mental illness is not an argument.
Yes it is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to describe a society ramming its head into the wall to kill itself as mentally ill.

>Similarly, all politics after Hitler is a rearguard action against the society he represented. Which explains the constant handwringing of psychoanalysts after the war over the origins of totalitarianism, by the way.
Yeah and we see the return of the repressed in the Isreali jews, who also reinforce my point about the abandoning of slave morality leading to society wide mental illness.

>One wonders whether they were describing mental illness or natural law.
Yep there it is, the hierarchy of race can never fail, only be failed.

referenced by: >>3901

I'm not disputing Zi received

anon_gygu said in #3901 2w ago: received

>>3900

I think I agree with you that you can't have it both ways but I need to think about it more. I would just add that the new refounding was a top-down imposition on society just like the Soviet state was on its own. Frankly all the "capacity states" of the 20th century were. The regimes of the mid-20th century were largely hijacking what came before them.

>Yes it is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to describe a society ramming its head into the wall to kill itself as mentally ill.

Do you see the low birth rates of industrialized societies as an equivalent death drive? Not trying to trap you, but if you do see the consequences as equivalent then very few societies are sane.

I do not understand your point about Israeli Jews. Are you saying the Israelis are the real Nazis because they are currently genociding the actual Jews (brown people)?

I don't think slave and master moralities are the operative force in politics. All the regimes we've discussed so far have been motivated by Ideas.

referenced by: >>3902

I think I agree with received

anon_cepe said in #3902 2w ago: received

>>3901
>Do you see the low birth rates of industrialized societies as an equivalent death drive?
Hardly equivalent since it'll take quite a while to actually represent an existential threat, but yes, it's that death drive, albeit in a weaker form.

>I do not understand your point about Israeli Jews. Are you saying the Israelis are the real Nazis because they are currently genociding the actual Jews (brown people)?
I'm saying that they're following a similar pattern of behavior, attacking all their neighbors, committing genocide, and glorifying their actions with some sort of notion of racial superiority, necessarily secularized and along different lines of what a "race" is compared to the germans, but still, the same form of political consciousness. You look at Israeli social media and it's nothing but a constant stream of glorifying psychopathic behavior such as what their soldiers do in Gaza.

>I don't think slave and master moralities are the operative force in politics. All the regimes we've discussed so far have been motivated by Ideas.
What do you think moralities are if not ideas?

Hardly equivalent si received

anon_gygu said in #3903 2w ago: received

>I don't think slave and master moralities are the operative force in politics. All the regimes we've discussed so far have been motivated by Ideas.

Slave and master moralities according to Nietzsche are the behavioral expressions of certain psychological archetypes. They occur like stones or rain (I choose these metaphors because geneology is is like social geology), or the way certain animals evolve camoflauge in response to their environment. There is no "ought."

referenced by: >>3904

Slave and master mor received

anon_cepe said in #3904 2w ago: received

>>3903
Yeah I know what Nietzsche tried to claim all this stuff was real, but he was wrong. Ultimately slave morality and master morality are just ideologies. Any other explanation of them isn't compatible with actual observation.

Yeah I know what Nie received

You must login to post.