Posts Tagged ‘jonathan haidt’

Why Nationalism Is Rising And Globalism Is Falling

Friday, July 22nd, 2016

In a really interesting article over at The American Interest, Jonathan Haidt touches on the appeal of nationalism:

As societies become more prosperous and safe, they generally become more open and tolerant. Combined with vastly greater access to the food, movies, and consumer products of other cultures brought to us by globalization and the internet, this openness leads almost inevitably to the rise of a cosmopolitan attitude, usually most visible in the young urban elite. Local ties weaken, parochialism becomes a dirty word, and people begin to think of their fellow human beings as fellow “citizens of the world” (to quote candidate Barack Obama in Berlin in 2008). The word “cosmopolitan” comes from Greek roots meaning, literally, “citizen of the world.” Cosmopolitans embrace diversity and welcome immigration, often turning those topics into litmus tests for moral respectability.

…Nationalists see patriotism as a virtue; they think their country and its culture are unique and worth preserving. This is a real moral commitment, not a pose to cover up racist bigotry. Some nationalists do believe that their country is better than all others, and some nationalisms are plainly illiberal and overtly racist. But as many defenders of patriotism have pointed out, you love your spouse because she or he is yours, not because you think your spouse is superior to all others.

…Having a shared sense of identity, norms, and history generally promotes trust. Having no such shared sense leads to the condition that the sociologist Émile Durkheim described as “anomie” or normlessness. Societies with high trust, or high social capital, produce many beneficial outcomes for their citizens: lower crime rates, lower transaction costs for businesses, higher levels of prosperity, and a propensity toward generosity, among others.

This is the crux of a complex argument that is worth following in depth. Globalism is the result of stability producing neurotics who make money off of other neurotics; as Darwin predicted, the suspension of natural selection results in a new selection matrix being created from social factors, not results-based (consequentialist) ones.

Nationalism on the other hand is common sense based in knowledge of nature: each species produces results based in how it behaves. If you have a group of dogs, you get dog-society; if you have pigeons, you get a different society than if you have hawks. With humans, this varies between groups.

This leads to realizations of this nature — that America was not the result of its laws, but of its founding Western European stock:

“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people. “

Most people who are coming to Nationalism are not doing so through political means, but through cultural values and day-to-day revelations. In particular, they are seeing what a country run by the Other looks like, and whether we can “objectively” claim it is similar or “equal” to the old way, the fact is that it is not compatible with what we the majority need.

Throughout history, diversity has failed for this reason: with many groups occupying the same space, no group gets to choose a values system, and so the society is torn apart by internal conflict over individual values because it cannot select a values system as a whole. We are in that process right now.

No, Conservatives, “Return To God” Is Not The Answer

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

One of my favorite commenters speaks on the topic of religion as a means of salvaging dying civilizations:

Latin/Asian/African cultures cannot assimilate because culture is a result of the genetics/race of a people. We are a nation founded by Western and Northern European/Scandinavian peoples. Our culture reflects that. When we demand that other races assimilate to our culture, we are essentially asking them to be what they can never genetically be. It is no wonder they are angry and hate us; we are in essence saying that they are not us, which is true.

I used to believe that religion was independent of race but now I realize that is not true. Cultures adopt religion because it reflects the values and understanding of the people. That is why when Christianity is taken to Africa or Latin countries it becomes laden with superstition and is not Christianity at all. Different races will experience God in different ways because each is only capable of understanding God within the limits of their intelligence, which is a product of their genetics. Is it any wonder that the Middle East is Islamic? Their religion fits who they are as a people, genetically speaking.

This is a fundamental split among those who are not-Left. Among our population, most are hard in denial about the fact that our civilization is imploding. Of those who do recognize the decline, most have panicked and are looking for an easy answer; this is more denialism. Of this type of post-denial denialism, most choose a visually distinctive method: God fanatics, race fanatics, economic fanatics and eugenics fanatics. Each group is looking for a single principle to act like Leftist ideology and apply in all circumstances.

  • God fanatics. These are exemplified by this comment from the thread:

    There is nothing left to preserve. We have abandoned the God of our fathers and are rightly judged for our sins. When we return to the Lord Jesus Christ in our families and local communities, we can then begin to see restoration of some form.

    God fanatics argue for this because it lets them off the hook to do anything. They cannot force others to come to God, so they’ll go to church twice as hard and lament how no one follows God, then watch their society further crumble away while they do nothing. This is a typical conservative behavior: put your head down, work hard, pay those taxes, and lament the impossibility of something impossible instead of fixing the obvious problem.

  • Race fanatics. These people recognize a problem — that diversity is paradoxical in design and so will produce collapse — but instead of accepting that difficult thought, settle in for scapegoating one or more minority groups. By implication, after the great racial purge, everything else can continue as before, so the highest number of pro-democracy pro-socialist liberals can be found in this group. They deny that diversity did not happen in a vacuum, and it started 200 years ago or more, so we have to find the cause of that or all the sadistic racial holocausts in the world cannot save us from diversity, much less all the other problems.
  • Economic fanatics. These come in two types: socialist and capitalist. The New Right in Europe makes a lot of excellent observations but then comes out in support of European socialism, which creates a society that is insufferable because it is regimented and forces everyone to keep doing repetitive make-work in order to pay for the welfare state in classic “We Are The Robots” style jerky motions and cancelled eyes attire. Europe is miserable and has been for centuries because of the growing state and its inevitable tendency to enslave people to boring, pointless jobs and ugly, tedious cities. We are breeding ourselves into robotic zombie morons in order to pay for all those bennies, but your average European would rather die by rape than give up the welfare state. On the other hand, there are many American conservatives who believe that all of our problems could be solved by pure capitalism. Like the race fanatics, they take part of the solution and make it into the whole, which ignores all the other problems and their solutions.
  • Eugenics fanatics. Like most of the above, these have a partially correct response but miss the point by making it into an ideology like Leftism. Yes, Idiocracy is upon us but it has always been upon us. 90% of humanity by the ancient reckoning were of the thrall-nature and required telling what to do or they would screw it up and destroy good things for their own idiocy. The point of eugenics is to allow as many of the fools as possible to perish, but that by itself would not solve our problem, since even smart people make stupid decisions when assembled into herds.

All of the above are trying to make conservatism into Leftism. They want an ideology, or one simple principle that is applied universally to all people equally. The core of this belief is the socially-pleasing notion that all people are equal, when in fact since the dawn of time most people have been idiots who if not oppressed, destroy a civilization as surely as a leak in your intestine kills you with E. Coli poisoning.

“Return to God” is not the answer. Nor is “work hard and get ahead,” nor is “kill the Negroes/Jews.” These are all scapegoats and surrogates for the actual answer, which is to rebuild civilization. That requires four elements of a platform that I have identified elsewhere, which are (briefly): aristocracy, nationalism, positive incentives (incl. capitalism) and transcendental goals. Nationalism enables rule by culture, not Government; aristocracy gives us the best chance of good leadership; positive incentives reward competence instead of trying to protect the foolish from themselves, and a transcendental goal keeps us improving in quality.

Conservatives have failed for 200 years by relying on stupid fictions like “Return to God” that are basically a way of avoiding personal responsibility for fixing the problem. When you give up on an actual solution, you need to find a surrogate, and this is why “Return to God” — like racial fanaticism, socialist lunacy and raving eugenicism — is immensely popular.

Hint for the wise: avoid anything which is broadly popular, as that inevitably means that it is a form of denial of reality, and instead, a pleasant human fiction that causes warm fuzzy feelings as your society and future slide downward into a third-world abyss.

Here is another guy who gets it almost right:

I break with the alt-right crowd on a number of issues, abortion, might makes right morality, religion and aesthetic, but I feel that their specific argument in regard to racial/ethnic differences as they effect social order are valid. I, for my part, would add foundational religion to that list as I find credence in Carl Schmitt’s observation, “Political concepts are just secularized theological concepts.” Religion is not part of culture, but Culture a function of religion. The importance of Foundational Religion > Culture per say.

No, ten thousand times no: culture creates religion. All religions are interpretations of a naturalistic truth, or in other words, are descriptions by individual people of a symbolic representation of a truth that not all can detect and even those who can detect can only perceive in varying degrees. All implementations of religion are in turn interpretations of that religion. It is nonsense to say that there is “Christianity,” unless one is treating it as an ideology and assuming that the words in the book control people, which is nonsense as they will interpret those words as convenient for them, and to the degree that they are capable.

It is not accidental that Christianity in Mexico becomes a type of idol-worship and mysticism, or that in Haiti, Christianity becomes hybridized with Vodou. Third world populations choose third world levels of religion, just as they choose third-world style governments, personal behavior, and levels of social order. The people make the interpretation and no matter what you write down, they will convert it into what fits their own agenda, because — per Dunning-Kruger — this is what they understand and where their understanding stops.

As I have said before, you either put the best people in charge or watch as we are all oppressed by the incompetence of the rest. People in groups, even smart people, enact lunacy and stupidity.

Culture in turn arises from genetics (and also shapes genetics; like many things in nature, the two bootstrap one another). It is not as simple as IQ, but also involves the amount of vision and transcendental thinking among the group. An original culture like that of Europe aspires to something above the merely tangible, and this is why it rose above even those cultures which seemed ahead in intelligence, wealth and power like Asia.

Religion then arises out of culture and genetics alike. For that reason, any “return to God” will become a weapon of the enemy unless it is preceded by a restoration of health in culture, genetics, leadership, opportunity and transcendental goals.

Jonathan Haidt hits on a similar illusion, which he gets about half-right:

Human beings are incredibly irrational, biased, imperfect creatures. We are really, really bad at following the truth wherever it leads.

His second sentence is as accurate as anything that can be said, except for the implied equality of “we” — human beings vary greatly, and some are good at following the truth where it leads.

His first sentence is where he goes wrong. Our “rationality” is what leads us astray every time. It enables us to make symbolic conclusions based on gritty, complex data. This eliminates all consideration except the immediate and human in a utilitarian context. This is where we go wrong.

He then proceeds to make what I am calling “the STEM illusion”:

The brilliance of some of our classical liberal institutions, especially science at the university, is that it institutionalized disconfirmation. […] “We in science, we don’t really see the truth unbiasedly. We each put out our models, our theories, we try our hardest to prove we are right. And other scientists say ‘no, you didn’t see, this is wrong’ and then we have to defend it. That’s the way it works, institutionalized disconfirmation. It has made us as a species as a culture vastly smarter than we could be if we were just individuals deciding things for ourselves,” he continued.

And we are back to Leftism: he believes that a System can save us, instead of pointing out that this system worked when it was in the hands of 130+ IQ aristocrats but now, in the hands of the proles, it is nothing but multiple fumbles in an attempt to advance the career of each researcher.

No, Mr. Haidt, for all the good that you write, the above is wrong, although in service of a good thing (the idea of open debate on any topic). We are not all equal. And no System can compensate for that failing, just as merely sending everyone to church or killing off other races will not solve our problems, either.

To be right is to be rustled

Thursday, November 12th, 2015


Dearest readers, have you ever been rustled? You know, you see something on the internet, on television, or on the street that triggers some sort of rage in you? Something that you know is wrong, that you can feel a deep, terrible disgust about, though in the moment you are almost non-verbal? Later, perhaps, you can sit down and articulate exactly why what you experienced bothered you so. But it’s all a bit of justification, post hoc. If we are being honest with ourselves, we admit that our reaction was purely primal, and emotional- and there is not a thing wrong with that.

The reality is, to be right wing is to be rustled.

Let me explain.

“Rustling” is just the internet slang for when someone in a forum gets overly bothered by something, and rages or otherwise acts upset. In an anonymous forum, displays of out of control emotion lose you points, because sarcasm and snarkiness are the coin of the realm. More plainly stated, getting rustled is when you become disgusted or angry about something- something that everyone else is blissfully calm about.

I’ve written about Jonathan Haidt before, who has studied the differences in conservative and non-conservative minds. Haidt outlines six moral axis- care/harm, fairness (equality)/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. His conclusion was that liberals cared only about the first two categories- harm and inequality bothers them, but degradation does not.

This plays out rather observably in the real world. A description of a degenerate sex act is met by an indifferent shrug by your average Hillary Clinton supporter, while nearly causing you to vomit.

So why are you so much more rustled than she?

Because we live in a left-wing society, which apart from its present (temporary) foray into semi-free market, is completely and utterly dominated by fantasies about preventing harm and enforcing equality.

It is almost guaranteed that should you tune into television, read a newspaper, watch a standard-fare movie, or speak to someone on any topic not related to weather or sports, that you will encounter some version of the head-poundingly stupid proverbs bounded about by leftists as wisdom. These nasty poison pills invariably idealize equality, diversity, fairness and existentialism.

And this will bother you. And you will be bothered much more by this kind of filth than someone who has absorbed modernist poison into their souls, or the many more who have simply shut down their responses to these stimuli, preferring to ignore them and self medicate with drugs or alcohol. This is where the stereotype of “angry conservative” comes from, because stereotypes tend to have their basis in truth. Once you have shed the blinders of ideology and realized the truth about human inequality and democracy, almost everything produced for the masses in the last 50 years will begin to bother you, even if only in subtle ways.

Now should the reactionary seek to cram down his disgust reaction, numb himself, and live with these feelings, so that he can live in society?

Yes and no. My recommendation is to use these emotions. Every time you see something disgusting being accepted, remember that feeling. Every time you hear demonic nonsense masquerading as political discourse, remember the anger. Channel it into contempt. Contempt for the wretched state of our society- feel it in your bones that you are better than this, and should live in a better spiritual place than this.

And use that feeling to separate yourself. You have no loyalty to anything which embodies the worse urges of man. You owe nothing to a state which is determined to destroy anything good, or true, or beautiful.

Instead, you should channel your frustration and disgust into building something- a mannerbund, a gang, someplace to belong. Create your own society. Avoid the poz. Your soul is trying to tell you something every time you get rustled.

Listen to it.

The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, by Jonathan Haidt

Monday, July 20th, 2015


The record of scientists and engineers in philosophy is fairly dismal. Lacking the perspective on argument as a method of incorporating multiple angles of analysis at the same time, they zoom in on single angles and, as is the tradition in their field, draw broad conclusions from details of the data. The result is inevitably populist philosophy that appeals to people because of its oversimplification, but falls apart on further notice. With this in mind, Jonathan Haidt’s attempt to cross over into liberal arts land is not only ambitious, but a partial success marred by failure in both philosophy and mechanics.

With The Happiness Hypothesis, Haidt tears into a question of particular relevance: where do philosophy and studies from sociology, psychology and neuroscience overlap? He does so from his ultimately liberal perspective but manages to keep an open mind toward many good ideas while trying to shift the conversation in a liberal direction, but his thesis ends up favoring a conservative idea. He presents a formula for happiness that appeared in the research of others but Haidt explains more clearly and connects to related concepts:

H = S + C + V

In this case, experienced happiness (H) is equal to a biological set point (S) plus the conditions of life (C) plus the amount of volunteer activities (V) in which the individual subject engages (91). Biological set point refers to the innate degree of positivity hardwired into the individual; conditions of life encompass socioeconomic status and limits on the individual imposed by physical and mental condition; and volunteer activities refer to any engagement in the community which is not strictly mandated by immediate self-interest. What is interesting about this formula is that it debunks the liberal model of happiness. First, people are wired toward a certain outlook. Second, they are not incredibly disturbed by even a bad condition in life because they quickly adapt to it. Finally, acting for the benefit of society as a group — instead of imposed methods of making people equal — seems to bring the greatest happiness. As with all that Haidt does, he makes these revelations slowly and hides the good bits in the details so as to avoid directly challenging the status quo, then later cleans up with some positive noises about the usual assumptions.

The first half of the book provides the most interesting information and shortly past the formula the writing changes into a breezier, more conjectural and less factual style. This contrasts the early chapters which hit a sequence of ideas in rapid order and produce the sense of covering vast ground, then loosely tie those thoughts to philosophical musings, where the later chapters focus first on a general philosophical idea — usually drawn from the odious Buddha — and then expand it to cover enough areas to rope in some tangentially-related research. Some exceptions exist, but lower density and more conversational logic in the second half makes it worth skipping for the most part. One such blip comes in this discussion of moral reasoning:

This turn from character ethics to quandary ethics has turned moral education away from virtues and toward moral reasoning. If morality is about dilemmas, then moral education is training in problem solving. Children must be taught how to think about moral problems, especially to overcome their natural egoism and take into their calculations the needs of others. As the United States became more ethnically diverse in the 1970s and 1980s, and also more averse to authoritarian methods of education, the idea of teaching specific moral facts and values went out of fashion. Instead, the rationalist legacy of quandary ethics gave us teachers and many parents who would enthusiastically endorse this line, from a recent child-rearing handbook: “My approach does not teach children what and what not to do and why, but rather, it teaches them how to think so they can decide for themselves what and what not to do, and why.” (164)

In this example, Haidt reveals the difference between ancient views of morality and those in the present: in societies which were not pluralistic, there could be a single standard of moral behavior, which put the focus back on the individual in the form of the question of whether they acted according to that standard. Because culture tends to form a pyramid from a few basic ideas outward, this standard concerned goals more than specific rules, leaving the specific adaptation to the individual. As society becomes less unified, and eventually adopts multiple moral standards, the question moves from moral goals to personal behavior for the purposes of appearance and takes on a defensive role, with individuals offering reasoning as a form of excuse-slash-rationalization after the fact. Haidt does not explore those issues, which are beyond the scope of this book in addition to being hopelessly un-PC, but he provides the keys to that level of thinking.

Earlier in the book, during the more exciting section that mated modern research to philosophical observations rather than broad philosophical conclusions, Haidt explores hard genetic determinism and the concept of inborn character, ending up a step away from discovering nobility as a character trait and the basis of the caste system:

When we combine the adaptation principle with the discovery that people’s average level of happiness is highly heritable, we come to a startling possibility: In the long run, it doesn’t much matter what happens to you. Good fortune or bad, you will always return to your happiness setting — your brain’s default level of happiness — which was determined largely by your genes…If this idea is correct, then we are all stuck on what has been called the “hedonic treadmill.” On an exercise treadmill you can increase the speed all you want, but you stay in the same place. In life, you can work as hard as you want, and accumulate all the riches, fruit trees, and concubines you want, but you can’t get ahead. Because you can’t change your “natural and usual state of tranquility,” the riches you accumulate will just raise your expectations and leave you no better off than you were before. (86)

Among other things, this model refutes the liberal idea of political equality and rising wealth creating happiness. It also subverts many of the notions of consumer society. While most of this book offers essentially background information, interesting cross-overs like these are frequent in the first four chapters and scattered throughout the book. Despite the generally over-written second half and its resulting sparseness of information, this book provides a great reference point for conservatives by debunking many human myths of happiness, and pointing instead toward the type of community-involved society that a civilization unified by heritage, culture and values could create. With a hard edit, this one could go down to approximately a hundred pages and be more effective.

Right brain, left brain and the spectrum of respectability

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015


Occasionally, social scientists — one of the upper levels of the clerisy — wax too esoteric in discussing the nature of angels on the heads of pins (of oppression) that they forget their primary job of preaching the gospel of the Cathedral.

Jonathan David Haidt is a Jewish social science professor at New York University. If the Clerisy had formal ranks, Haidt would have to figure somewhere between bishop and archbishop. Nevertheless, the man is bucking the current Cathedral trend of labeling conservatives as bad people and bigots. Instead, he asserts that brain structures vary with political beliefs. In other words, your political outlook is hard-wired into your brain and not a conscious choice.

This used to be a claim that leftists loved to make about criminality (while ignoring its troubling logical conclusion); the idea of ascribing political belief to biology is relatively new. Haidt’s book centers around the latter conclusion, although strands of this kind of thought have circulated for a few years now. For example, around the 2012 election a similar summary of studies was released by, which laid out essential behavioral differences between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind, sets out the major differences between liberals and “conservatives.” “Conservatives” apparently value the following concepts about equally: avoidance of harm, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Liberals, by contrast, care only about the first two.

Anyone who has ever personally encountered a far-left individual will recognize that this psychological profile has some merit — they tend to be psychotically obsessed with fairness and are physically cowardly. But what does it tell us about the conservative? The five qualities listed all seem like concepts that normal people would value, well, roughly equally.

It is accepted wisdom in the alt-right that the Republican Party in the United States is not a real right wing; instead, it is analogous to the Right-Opposition in the Soviet Union, simply a slightly less-left party. It is the place for people who are normal and are (justifiably) uncomfortable with what is going on in their nation. The Republican Party, the only “right” that people like Dr. Haidt will ever interact with, is simply the safest space for the American with normal social instincts to politically gather, unless they want to risk social ostracism.

What Haidt’s study has inadvertently revealed is not a profound neurological difference between right and left, but the neurological difference between normal white Americans and leftists. The proof is plain in the questions he asks. For example, a question on “racism”:

A group of politicians proposed a law that would add modest new restrictions on getting a driver’s license. The new law put in place a rating system for driver’s education courses to decide if they meet basic requirements. The politicians attempted to evaluate every driving school fairly, but it was found that classes attended mostly by non-white students were evaluated lower than those attended by white students. The politicians have no outward preference for one race. However, they were found to have an unconscious bias against non-white candidates that was affecting their rating decisions unintentionally.

The test taker is asked to identify whether the politicians are racist or not racist. The rest of the questions have a similar bent; they basically divide the test taker into those on the left, or in the center of the Republican Party.

The intent of the test was for Haidt to figure out why there is such stubborn resistance to the minor aspects of Cthulhu’s progress. What he exposed, instead, is the full extent of how mentally unbalanced leftists are. An overdeveloped sense of fairness is one of the signs of borderline personality disorder. As for pain avoidance, we need no psychology to place that failing firmly in the category of cowardice.
As of today, true right wing tendencies must either be sublimated, or expressed non-politically, in fora like entertainment or videogames. If Haidt ever did want to test members of the authentic right, I’d be interested in the results of his data. Until that day, any attempt to measure the differences between right and left will boil down to the testing the far left against the center-left.

But perhaps, in a way, it makes sense to reduce the fake-conservative opposition down to a biological phenomenon. As the ultimate cuckservative William Buckley Jr observed “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” A broken clock is right twice a day, and Buckley was correct in his observation. It helps The Narrative to explain that, despite fifty years or more of browbeating, why “those people” come along ever so slowly, and capitulate only after putting on at least a symbolic fight.

The deterministic “science-y” position on the psychology of “conservatism” has to become dominant for The Narrative to remain coherent. After all, “conservatives” have been hearing the Good News of the Cathedral and they still whine and complain. What gives, bro? Haven’t you heard the message of True Equality?

Diversity Doesn’t Work

Saturday, November 20th, 2010

For 200 years, nearly the entire duration of the country, America has been wracked by race. We write more about it than any other single, consistent political topic.

For the last 50 years, Europe has joined us.

For 2500 years at least India has wrestled with this issue; it is known also in China, to a much lesser degree, and was known in ancient Greece and Rome, particularly shortly before they dropped off the radar of history.

Why? Diversity, or multiculturalism, is a subset of a larger issue: how to maintain social hierarchy not through government but through inherent acceptance and desiring of the same goals and values.

Of course this issue is intertwined with social class; lower classes in every nation are those who are more prone to put their desires before their obligations, usually as a result of low intelligence. (You’ll probably object to me saying such a blunt and impolitic truth, but you have no problem paying Juanita the maid $10 an hour or buying those Chinese goods made by workers getting $4/week. Hypocrite, heal thyself.)

And yet we cannot face the truth of this issue, which is that diversity in any form does not work.

The problem is not blacks, or whites, or any other ethnic groups — it’s that combining them destroys cultural consensus and shared values, which are genetically encoded in every population, by averaging two or more distinctive and different cultures.

Culture makes ethnicity; ethnicity makes culture. We cannot separate the two:

Cultural and genetic evolution are intertwined. The human capacity for culture — a strong tendency to learn from each other, to teach each other, and to build upon what we have learned — is itself a genetic evolution that happened in stages over the last few million years. But once our brains reached a critical threshold, perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, cultural innovation began to accelerate; a strong evolutionary pressure then shaped brains to take further advantage of culture. Individuals who could best learn from others were more successful than their less “cultured” brethren, and as brains became more cultural, cultures became more elaborate, further increasing the advantage of having a more cultural brain. All human beings today are the products of the co-evolution of a set of genes (which is almost identical across cultures) and a set of cultural elements (which is diverse across cultures, but still constrained by the capacities and predispositions of the human mind). For example, the genetic evolution of the emotion of disgust made it possible (but not inevitable) for cultures to develop caste systems based on occupation and strongly supported by disgust toward those who perform “polluting” activities. A caste system then restricts marriage to within-caste pairings, which in turn alters the course of genetic evolution. After a thousand years of inbreeding within castes, castes will diverge slightly on a few genetic traits — for example, shades of skin color — which might in turn lead to growing cultural association of caste with color rather than with occupation. (It only takes twenty generations of selective breeding to create large differences of appearance and behavior in other mammals.) In this way, genes and cultures co-evolve; they mutually affect each other, and neither process can be studied in isolation for human beings. – The Happiness Hypothesis: finding modern truth in ancient wisdom, by Jonathan Haidt, page 233

This is what paleoconservatives called “race-culture theory” for centuries before Dr. Haidt so helpfully recorded it. In the conservative view, societies splinter by ability, with the wisest going to the top (aristocrats) and the intermediate becoming a middle class, with the lowest classes and castes reserved for those with few skills, low native intellience and/or low conformity or awareness of the moral standards of the society.

Since 1789, the West has been moving from a conservative model to a new one based on the wealth of our industrial revolution, or rather the pre-industrial revolution and consequent Enlightenment:

“Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies.” The acronym there being WEIRD. “Our findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Overall, these empirical patterns suggest that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature, on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin and rather unusual slice of humanity.”

As I read through the article, in terms of summarizing the content, in what way are WEIRD people different, my summary is this: The WEIRDer you are, the more you perceive a world full of separate objects, rather than relationships, and the more you use an analytical thinking style, focusing on categories and laws, rather than a holistic style, focusing on patterns and contexts.

Now, let me state clearly that these empirical facts about “WEIRD-ness”, they don’t in any way imply that our morality is wrong, only that it is unusual. – The New Science of Morality, a talk by Jonathan Haidt

Facts don’t judge morality as right or wrong; its effects, such as the rise or fall of empires, can be measured a thousand years later to gauge how effective that morality was.

But his point is interesting:

The WEIRDer you are, the more you perceive a world full of separate objects, rather than relationships, and the more you use an analytical thinking style, focusing on categories and laws, rather than a holistic style, focusing on patterns and contexts.

Cultural consensus is itself based on patterns and concepts, namely the idea that an “order” of adaptation to nature exists for that culture, and that we all fit within it and work toward it. Only in the rich industrialized liberal-democratic West are we working toward a tangible manifestation of that, the individual.

So we have race-culture theory, and what opposes it, the modern individualism.

In another lecture, Haidt expresses how this connects to race/ethnicity:

The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous nationalism, but in moderate doses a sense that “we are all one” is a recipe for high social capital and civic well-being. A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie and social isolation by decreasing people’s sense of belonging to a shared community. – What makes people vote Republican?, by Jonathan Haidt

This is why diversity doesn’t work: morality binds us together toward a goal, and ethnicity encodes that binding in our genes, so that we then recognize any appreciable divergence — Haidt puts it at 20% approximately — will fragment that consensus and cause our society to collapse, much as Plato intimated it would.

This is why diversity doesn’t work. As this young woman found out:

Neely Fuller, Jr. basically says that if you are white and you are romantically/sexually involved with a nonwhite person, you are guilty of being the worst kind of racist. He likens it to an adult being involved with a child, because of the power differential. He says that a white person who is romantically connected with a nonwhite person is contributing to that person’s confusion and self hatred , and that any children produced from that union will be hopelessly lost in terms of self identity.

In Trojan Horse, the anonymous authors say that interracial relationships, particularly between Black men and white women, are one of the tools of destruction used against the Black collective by the system of white supremacy. They believe that an increase in interracial relationships will destroy Black society, and lead to the eventual extinction of Black people because the child produced by such a union tends to identify more with white people, and will marry/bear children with white people, thus producing offspring that appear to be white.

Now, as most of you know, I do date Black men. There are two main reasons for this choice. First of all, I am not attracted to white men, physically, mentally, or emotionally. Secondly, I cannot see myself being in an intimate relationship with a white man (whether sexual or platonic) because the fact is that MOST WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACISTS, and I do not wish to spend time in the company of hate filled people. In fact, I do not really associate with white people in general, except for my own family, and even that is kept at a bare minimum. All of my male and female friends are people of color. – Am I Contributing to the Destruction of an entire race?, by Joanna

Two interesting things here:

  1. Diversity is destruction. When you mix races, you destroy those races. This is why diversity (and not black people or white people) is the cause of racism: no one wants to be destroyed. And this isn’t idle: as we show above, race/ethnicity is the biological vessel of culture and values, so it’s that which carries on all that we strive for. Very important.
  2. Self-hatred is neurotic. She doesn’t want to spend time around white people because “most of them” are hateful racists; she has no problem generalizing against her own group. Why is this? She feels this group has betrayed its own values. However, the only way for that to work is for those values to be corrupt, which makes her a critic of the W.E.I.R.D. nouveau consensus and a defender of the ancient, paleoconservative one.

This issue has never gone away because we have never found a way to solve it. That is because the way to solve it, a recognition of hierarchy, violates our post-Enlightenment notion of the equality of all people.

A solution does exist:

First, the races/ethnies evolved separately and have separate values systems; mashing those together destroys them. End diversity, as it cannot work without a cost so high we don’t want to consider it. Without inherent values, we are left with scientific management at the hands of a government strong enough to enforce values a thousand ways per person daily — a totalitarian surveillance state. 1984 doesn’t occur because the people are good, but because they can’t agree what’s good, so a power structure needs to step in, figure out a way of defining good, and then impose it with force. Separate the races.

Second, caste systems always will exist — and are gentler than class systems, as they do not force every single citizen into constant competition for money to buy their way into the higher levels of class. Caste separates us by ability; class separates us by ability and willingness to accumulate material wealth. Restore the aristocracy, and throw some people into the laborer group and disenfranchise them for having a lack of ability to make judgments correctly about factual and long-term concerns. We are genetically different in ability, moral character and intelligence, and caste preserves this, while ending the incessant class warfare that marks W.E.I.R.D. nations to this day.

These are difficult truths and I expect them to be ignored until it is too late, at which point they will become common knowledge, and we will embark on the exponentially more difficult process of reconstructing when we could have simply changed direction. C’est la vie.

Recommended Reading