Deracination

Arthur Jensen, quoted by Jared Taylor:

I’m merely interested in the preservation of civilization, regardless of where it is. Some people are so afraid, of say, the Asians taking over in this country. Well if they can take over and do a better job than the rest of us, if they preserve the great things of both Western and Asian civilization, I don’t think the world will be worse off. Race and color and national origin and that sort of thing, don’t really matter much to me at all.

Outside in agrees. If those Chinese eugenics nightmares come to pass, the future is theirs by (natural) right. A people that opts for stupidity deserves to be replaced.

April 11, 2013admin 53 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : ,

53 Responses to this entry

  • spandrell Says:

    Once you get to that level of abstraction, does anything matter?
    I find it hard to focus ‘far mode’ and get concerned about my grand-grandchildren’s world.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I was irresistibly attracted by the experimental possibilities of a post that would equally and utterly outrage racists and anti-racists alike. So far — Zen-like calm detachment. Oh well, there’s still time …

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Comment stuck on moderation :/

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2013 at 7:57 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    OK, I’ll play then:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306842/Stunning-images-Hong-Kong-living-cubicles-look-just-like-Borg-cubes.html

    Is that the future you want for our children??!?!

    Compared to this?
    http://deconstructingleftism.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/monday-motivation/

    You sir are aesthetically impaired. What happened with beauty=truth?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Those Michael Wolf montages have been on display here — at M97 (which promotes him). The third image, which I think is a ‘simple’ photograph, looks like a gorgeous place to live actually — don’t you think? Then again, I’d be OK with Borg cubes, after all, you can be neurally adjusted to life in them — sleeping in a coffin is no problem with the right implants.

    Since this blog seems to be locked into a weird Star Trek theme today, I’d have to say your buddy thrasymachus33308 is a little too gone into Klingon to hit the spot for me.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Well I happen to have lived in one of those places.
    It ain’t pretty. Then again I didn’t have any implants.

    My beef with Hong Kong housing is that’s its getting worse. You see pictures of the new projects and they’re even smaller and uglier than the big blocks of the 80s. That’s just wrong. Apartments in Shanghai are getting bigger and nicer all the time.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If Shanghai is zapping HK, I have to go all partisan and start applauding crazily.
    That said, miniaturization is generally the right vector for things to be on.

    Samson J. Reply:

    The third image, which I think is a ‘simple’ photograph, looks like a gorgeous place to live actually — don’t you think?

    You cannot possibly be serious, sir.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2013 at 9:40 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    It seems odd to say, oh I don’t care what happens to my civilisation, as long as civilisation in general survives.

    Oh, I don’t care what happens to my nation, as long as the nation in general survives.

    Oh, I don’t care what happens to my family, as long as the family in general survives.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    I don’t care what happens to my body, as long as the human body in general survives.

    Hey wait a second

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s a stark rightist fracture here.
    Theonomists: You atheist nihilists don’t accept objective values.
    Crypto-fascists: Rather my retard relatives than genius aliens.

    Once you’re pitted against the most intelligent thing happening, it’s over. Maybe you’re compelled by some kind of Hamiltonian inclusive fitness mind-control to try and protect your own dead-end genes from the future, but if so it’s just sad, and futile. Much better — and in fact the only thing that really works — is to make sure that you’re always lined up with intelligence amplification — that’s the ‘objective value’ that matters.

    [Reply]

    vimothy Reply:

    The most intelligent thing happening has spent the last 50 or 60 abolishing its culture, failing to reproduce and repopulating its countries with the detritus of its former empires.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I think a definition clash might be brewing here.
    According to the usage I’m drawing upon, anything that is systematically making itself more stupid cannot be the most intelligent thing happening, and in fact compares unfavorably with a pet rock — even a severely brain-damaged pet rock.
    If Intelligence = Extropy production, this goes through on a nod.

    Posted on April 11th, 2013 at 9:46 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    @vimothy

    I think you are right that there are major disagreements lurking beneath the surface here. As far as intelligence goes, that seems like a rather circular definition to me. It implies that low measured-IQ African states are more intelligent than high measured-IQ western states. But that doesn’t seem right either.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If African states were rapidly advancing in extropy production, even from a low base, while Western states were (as they clearly are) decaying before our eyes, then I’m not sure why this should be resisted. Socialism is stupid, stupefying, and enstupidating, even when run by geniuses (measured by individual IQ). Is Africa actually on a contrary trajectory to the Cathedral norm? I’d require some convincing. (Rwanda might be, but South Africa? obviously not.)

    ‘Intelligence is that which makes itself more intelligent’ — that’s not crippling circularity, but productive cybernetics. Think of it as as AI development problem. Which crosses the singularity:
    (a) A program equivalent to 80 IQ points in human terms, that gradually degenerates.
    (b) A program equivalent to 20 IQ points in human terms, that improves itself through a self-engineering learning cycle, on an escalating trend.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    What if Skynet doesn’t see the point in expanding and doing much at all? An AI wouldn’t have a competitive motive to achieve anything.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Then it would be a stupid dead end.

    vimothy Reply:

    Why would geniuses choose something, like socialism, that is stupid? As I read your argument, this implies that they are not geniuses, which is a contradiction.

    I would argue rather that geniuses choosing socialism shows that genius is no panacea. In fact, they often seem to be completely out to lunch–more so than any other part of society. After all, who is more proud than the genius? But pride is no virtue.

    “Modernity is hubris; decadence is its Nemesis.”–Mark Anderson

    [Reply]

    vimothy Reply:

    Incidentally, are you familiar with Bruce Charlton’s essay on the “clever sillies”? Quite a useful concept, I’ve found:

    http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

    admin Reply:

    The apparent contradiction stems from an apples and oranges comparison of individuals and social processes. Saying ‘what is happening in France is utterly moronic’ is not the same as saying ‘French people are morons’, although — in common usage — the two declarations do smear into each other confusingly.
    Your objections are very helpful — I’ll aim for systematic lucidity on the topic (down the road …)

    vimothy Reply:

    Thanks Nick–you’ve always been a gracious interlocutor–I think I understand the distinction you’re making now. I’m not sure if it isn’t still circular, but it’s obvious that I need to give it bit more thought …

    Posted on April 11th, 2013 at 1:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    ‘God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?’

    …Build him.

    But do we build God even if we know he would destroy us i.e. exterminate the entire human race?

    What does our logic say about that?

    Where should we file it, Animaniacs style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEcdZdGVllw), good idea / bad idea?!

    I am going with ‘good’.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    But most people would say bad. How do you change that? From a biological perspective I would say the ability to survive would be tied in with intelligence. Primates are naturally risk-averse – God might destroy us? Best not go down that road then… Similarly leaving the tribe is basically seen as suicide. So how do you get humanity to organise for an intelligence that is beyond and in some sense contrary to its own? Eliminate tribalism? Is that possible? Or change loyalty – the ‘us’ (major übermensch recruitment campaign)? Is that possible (in any significant numbers)? Bitcoin has the potential to impose an economic structure that inevitably leads to the building of God. That could be a way of carrying people involuntarily, but remains a long shot. Spandrell’s initial comment – “Once you get to that level of abstraction, does anything matter?” – is basically the crux, how do you get people to care or commit beyond themselves and the immediately pressing?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Bitcoin has the potential to impose an economic structure that inevitably leads to the building of God.

    I seem to have missed the marginal note on that one. I would have thought Bitcoin has the ability to return us to 14th century standards of accounting.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    All good questions (and the sheer black-hole density of query marks makes an important point in itself — systematic elucidation necessary).

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2013 at 5:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • asdf Says:

    If I thought Asians would treat whites well once they took over I’d have no problem. I’ve known lots of Asians though, and they will not hesitate to make us second class citizens once they have the power.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What’s a ‘second class citizen’? Here in Shanghai, I guess all the foreigners are already second class citizens — because there’s not even the slightest suggestion that we have a right to political involvement. Of course, that seems perfectly acceptable to me: If my fellow expats got involved in politics here, it would be because they wanted to Cathedralize the place. Even under present conditions, they still try to Cathedralize wherever they can (through media, for instance). They can’t help it. They’re deeply sick.
    So, imagine our science fiction scenario, in which the only parts of the earth where functional civilization remains are run by cyborgian Neo-Han with average IQs at least 2SD above the white norm — of course the natives would be ‘second class citizens’. Giving them political power would be like putting a chimpanzee in charge of a nuclear power plant. If you were a smart native, would you want your fellow natives to acquire political power? Why? They’d just screw things up.
    The problem isn’t being a second class citizen, the problem is being second class — i.e. incarnating a social process that retards or degrades. Best to separate yourself from it.

    [Reply]

    asdf Reply:

    Surely you must be old enough by now to know that people hire like people, do business with like people, advocate and enact laws that benefit like people (even with no democracy). Race is a huge part of what makes someone a “like person”.

    Let’s consider a corporate example. In my company whenever an Asian takes over a management position in a company he will then hire all Asians under him. So Asians getting power mean fewer positions for non Asians, because they will be biased towards other Asians.

    You are correct that whites are sick. They should keep the power within their group to their benefit. They broke on this because some white sought to gain from betraying other whites and the betrayed whites didn’t fight back. From my dealings with Asians I don’t think they are that stupid. They get racial solidarity.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    When racial solidarity lowers efficiency (which is typically) it’s objectively idiotic and dysfunctional in a competitive environment. Despite their 5-point IQ deficit versus East Asians, North-West Europeans dominated modernity due to their comparatively low tribalism. Racial solidarity privileges stupid insiders over smart outsiders. It’s hardly a model to emulate.

    asdf Reply:

    “dominated modernity due to their comparatively low tribalism”

    Low tribalism is destroying the west today. And all those tribal Asian countries full of racist seem to be doing just fine. The west advanced when it was racist, and stopped advancing when it stopped being racist.

    P.S. There are all sorts of reasons Europe won. Not least of which is right before the Mongols were about the conquer all of Europe the Khan died of alcoholism at a young age. So all the competing cultures except Europe lost a few hundred years of advancement. We could go on and on.

    “When racial solidarity lowers efficiency (which is typically) it’s objectively idiotic and dysfunctional in a competitive environment. ”

    If that’s true why is Toyota better then Ford? Japan is massively racist and employs only Japanese people. They have zero immigration and are xenophobic. How does a country that keeps out 95% of the worlds “smart people” on racial grounds still manage to have a better unemployment rate, no crime, clean streets, and modern living standards?

    Maybe working with people that are like you and share you values, and living in a country full of people that are like you and share your values, is actually efficient. Maybe having a multi-ethnic grab bag of people not invested in society at all just leads to massive rent seeking games.

    vimothy Reply:

    “When racial solidarity lowers efficiency (which is typically) it’s objectively idiotic and dysfunctional in a competitive environment.”

    Doesn’t this result presuppose a particular view of human society? If we think if society as a piece of technology, then it’s natural to think in terms of efficiency and maximising welfare or output over inputs and so on. I think it also provides the starting point (or the ground-zero) for arguments for “social engineering”–which can then become a series of purely technical questions about what allocations or institutional processes take us to the efficient optimum.

    “Racial solidarity privileges stupid insiders over smart outsiders. It’s hardly a model to emulate.”

    As a potentially stupid insider, why should I feel any loyalty to a society that is willing to privilege smarter outsiders over me?

    Posted on April 11th, 2013 at 8:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    On the larger topic, i.e., ex bitcoin, I really am wondering whence the notion that the (Chinese eugenic) future belongs to the smart(er) comes. The Chinese have been practicing (Civil-service driven) eugenics for quite a while and never managed to take over the world. Ashkenazi Jews have been practicing it for quite a while, too (much more successfully than the Chinese I might add), and Hollywood is about all they have to show for it (to say nothing of their abject lack of desire to “take over the world”).

    I mean, as a (perhaps token) “Throne-n-Altar” type here, I think it is far from obvious that some favorable distribution of IQ across a population necessarily equates to (much less deserves) success. Which is not to say, of course, that certain distributions are far better than others. But correlation doesn’t imply… yada yada.

    I remember back to James Burke’s (fantastic) 1978-9-ish series Connections. And Burke, no Throne-n-Altar type he, goes to lengths to explain how all this great stuff came to the West from the Chinese, and yet it was the West that conquered the world, and the why of that was basically Christianity set up the West much more favorably for world domination, and Eastern philosophies did not. Implying… some cultures are more dominant (arguably “better”) than others…

    And since the Chinese were then, like today, smarter than the Westerners (because they came up with all that great stuff), what makes us think that the Chinese are any more likely “take over the world” now?

    Don’t they still have all or most of the cultural shortcomings that made it unlikely in 1325? And don’t the Westerners, say 1/3 sigma stupider today as then, still have all or most of the cultural advantages that make them the on-going likely winners?

    This is to say nothing of the technical difficulties in eugenics. A brief history of dog eugenics shows, if anything, that selecting for certain traits tends to be detrimental to overall fitness. (Mutts live longer than pure breeds; English bulldogs are no longer born at all without caesarean section; yippy terriers are psychotic; etc.)

    So call me skeptical, but I’m just not seeing it… i.e., the smart people group irrevocably “taking over the world”, on behalf of or possibly at the expense of the dumb, and where I do see it, it sounds a lot more like an eschatological hope, than a well-founded scientific(ish) prediction.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    From a sufficiently panoramic perspective, dominance by intelligence can be seen as the equilibrium condition. Like every other sphere of complex dynamics, though, within the fine grain of social history, erratic deviation from equilibrium is to be expected.
    IQ and the Wealth of Nations suggests that on a large (space-time) scale, equilibrium asserts itself quite strongly.

    There’s more to your comment than this — but it will take some mulling over. If you’re right about the fundamentally orthogonal relationship between intelligence and effective social dominance, it does indeed follow that there’s no positive trend to latch onto. It’s certainly a proposition that deserves a careful answer.

    (Yudkowsky’s beautiful little essay on the topic is a starting point for me.)

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Nick:

    I’m certainly NOT saying that intelligence and social dominance are orthogonal, i.e., uncorrelated. Obviously they are. But, again, merely correlated. So what is the correlation? Well, it is not unity. Is it 0.5? So there’s a bunch of other undiscovered, possibly undiscoverable, stuff that “noises up” the simple straightforward relationship. But it is far from obvious that it is merely noise. On the contrary, there seem plenty of plausible narratives, such as James Burke’s, that explain why, for example, the West (for a long time) beat the East in making the others’ schoolchildren learn the victor’s language. And maybe those advantages are going away… Indeed, intelligence is worth more today than ever. But, yet, when we look at the MOST intelligent cohort (in East or West), we find them to be a bit… erm… wimpy, rarely natural leaders (who tend to come from second sigma), and quite frankly folks who don’t seem terribly fit reproductively speaking. And sure, we can weave scenarios about how industries of scale in artificial reproduction and eugenic design can produce offspring even the most socially inept geniuses, but the more outlandish that narrative, really the more unpleasant it sounds… even for the inept geniuses.

    If, to summarize, we accept what is before our eyes that intelligence may evolve in a species–specifically a level of intelligence that allows that species to directly influence its own evolution, then should we not also give at least cautionary heed to that same natural process? Man has been influencing his own evolution for 1000s of years already, but by a thing called culture.

    When nature fights against nature, who will win?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I think all these hedges and qualifications are sensible. My simplifications are attempts to bring out the basic issues, without at all wanting to suggest that the basic issues are simple.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Yudkowski’s essay is indeed beautiful. He evinces a profound reverence for the capacities of the human mind (spirit). Ironically, it is a reverence I would not have expected in a person associated with a Machine Intelligence Institute. Maybe I just don’t get out much.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2013 at 8:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Victor Says:

    What great things of Asian civilization?

    Relativism makes you very stupid.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Just sticking with China (off the top of my head, and quickly): The Yijing (including systematic binary notation); Daoism; Confucianism; Legalism; Chan Buddhism; hydraulic engineering; paper-making; printing; gunpowder (including flamethrowers and rockets); the compass; the escapement mechanism; decimal notation (place-value and fractions), algebraic geometry, algorithms, a refined value of pi, and familiarity with ‘Pascal’s Triangle’ (already described in AD 1303 as the ‘Old Method’); Shanshui painting; calligraphy (four major types); the four classic novels (and super-abundant literary tradition); a rich classical music tradition; Jiangnan gardens; innumerable craft arts (bronzes, jade, lacquer, porcelain …); numerous cartographic, nautical, and navigational innovations; first employment of the crank handle, clockwork, chain pumps and drives, differential gearing, sliding calipers, feedback control, and steam power; pagoda architecture; one of the world’s greatest commercial cultures; tea cultivation; the world’s absolutely supreme culinary culture (with at least eight major traditions) … plus (in combination with Britain), Lilong architecture, the hong business structure, modern Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Singapore …

    [Reply]

    spa Reply:

    Steam power? Puhleeze

    And who cares about caligraphy really. It’s a fucked up system. And I can read it.

    It doesn’t matter if you invent stuff if you don’t harness its power. Gunpowder didn’t do shit for China, besides waking up everyone on New Years.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I think you’re missing the most interesting point, which is that China did do all that stuff — yes, including steam power — but it didn’t go critical. What was missing? Capitalism, properly understood (as a threshold into runaway process).
    Reverse that, and the lesson is even more telling: without capitalism nothing is going to happen, regardless of whatever else you’ve got.

    Posted on April 12th, 2013 at 3:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    @asdf

    “Racial solidarity privileges stupid insiders over smart outsiders. It’s hardly a model to emulate.”

    The Chua book is nailing this down with aplomb.

    [Reply]

    asdf Reply:

    The Chua book? The women who said you were fucking retarded if you endorsed diversity.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’d admit that’s the retarded (‘sons-of-the-soil’) perspective on the book?

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    “The women who said you were fucking retarded if you endorsed diversity.”

    You’ve lost me.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2013 at 8:42 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    I’m not sure if this is on topic or off topic, but anyone who’s ever come across Cosma Shalizi’s essay, “g, a Statistical Myth,” might find this detailed rebuttal of interest:

    http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2013 at 5:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Comment dialog seem screwed up on the It’s On post, so I figured I’d

    a) let Nick know if he doesn’t already; and

    b) respond:

    This commentary is hugely appreciated.

    You can send tips: 1CTW4aHZJX2tiNFUTJfynyHeWeZRfE6tbu

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Comment dialog seem screwed up on the It’s On post” — I’m not yet grokking the problem (what’s going wrong?).

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Well, the normal dialog is not displaying on the page load or when I hit “Reply” or “Quote” buttons. This behavior happens in Safari 5.1.8 on Mac and in Firefox (not terribly new) on Linux…

    Maybe someone (<furtive_whistling>) forgot to close an html code. </a></a></em></em>

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2013 at 5:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ Vimothy
    “As a potentially stupid insider, why should I feel any loyalty to a society that is willing to privilege smarter outsiders over me?” — In the best (eugenic) case, stupid insiders will be demoralized enough not to breed, or to emigrate, but that’s probably over-optimistic. Most likely they’ll vote ethno-nationalist and try to drag society down to their level. (The smart people will then hunt for the exit).

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    I’d say that right now it’s the smart people, outsiders or not, who are demoralized and not breeding.

    Remember Singapore’s 0.78

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s basically true, for sure. Anecdotally, however, the post-nationalized expat fringe seems to be markedly more fertile than its domesticated counterpart, still pinned down in idiocracy-overlorded ethno-nationalist slave camps. Among my partially liberated acquaintances two-child families seem more like a bottom-line than a demographic goal slipping out of reach.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Well it would be good to have some data. My guess is for every fertile expat couple there are two singles with no children or prospects.

    How many expats are “post-nationalized”? Most hate it where they are and eventually go back. They miss the idiocracy-overlorded ethno-nationalist slave camps.

    admin Reply:

    Is there any data, I wonder? It would be interested to know the size and population dynamics of the ex-Western world. Freed from the degenerate political ‘rights’ that have silted up in its native societies, it’s a pathfinder for a post-Cathedral social order. My guess is that it’s more productive (and reproductive) in consequence.

    Posted on April 12th, 2013 at 10:56 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment