Quote notes (#46)

Commenter ‘augurae’ at the TC Colloseum:

I believe these people are stupidest and most dangerous people on the planet. But it would be lying if I said I didn’t share some of their ideas: for exemple, I think that if prior to, or after the second world war, we killed all the reactionaries and other fascists-friendly people, we would’ve prevented the situation we are in today and be way further in term of technology, medicine, economy, social and global peace…

People who prone social darwinism are the people who don’t invent or change shit, except for the worse, and I mean the worse periods in humanity’s History like the Middle Age or WWII. Moreover they are dangerous, racist, retrograde people who should be killed.

Liberal humanists — you have to love them.

There’s a comment from me pending at TC, and I’ve lost patience, so here it is (one word edited):

There’s absolutely no reason to think that the “HBD OMG! Auschwitz!” crowd here is receptive to logical argument, but what the hell — It goes like this:

Under the present Progressive dispensation, wherever group differences are detected in social outcomes, the dominant presupposition is that a grave social injustice has been identified. Not many women, blacks, or hispanics to be found as programmers in Silicon Valley companies? — obvious evil at work. The solution: new bureaucratic arrangements, indoctrination sessions, intensified ideological reconstruction of the education system, anti-rightist campaigns (the beatings will continue until ‘fairness’ arrives). Protest any of this, and full-spectrum social destruction will be orchestrated.

HBD and its associated ideas propose — on the basis of abundant empirical evidence and theoretical understanding — that the existence of deeply ingrained group differences, both biological and cultural, actually predict disparate social outcomes. Men and women, on average, are attracted to different professions, in keeping with their natural competences. The same applies to ethnic and racial groups. It makes no more sense to see a vicious racist conspiracy in the domination of sprinting by people of African ancestry than to see the same in the preponderance of Jews, East Asians, and Caucasians among mathematics professors. If this seems implausible to you, feel free to argue about it — there are rigorous research programs dedicated to researching examining such realities (even under contemporary Lysenkoist conditions).

The first-order consequence of HBD, therefore, is not to start organizing the cattle trucks to death camps, but in fact to — relax. People are different. They thrive at different things. No government is capable of comprehending optimal outcomes in detail (or even broad outline). Society’s spontaneous sorting mechanisms do a pretty good job at dealing with the situation, when left alone to do so, and certainly no superior arrangement presents itself. Best of all, you don’t even need to pull your jackboots on to let things work. So chill (except that’s increasingly illegal).

ADDED: A link worth noting.

ADDED: Panic! (Some smart comments to the initial froth-post.)

November 25, 2013admin 38 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : ,

38 Responses to this entry

  • fotrkd Says:

    I think “[If] we killed all the reactionaries and other fascists-friendly people…” is a definite keeper. Sort of encapsulates it all, doesn’t it? Nice category title btw (fascinatingly predictable and depressing viewing over on the TC comments thread – almost enough to make one neoreactionary).

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 1:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    STOMP OUT INTOLERANCE!!!

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 2:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Count Nothingface Says:

    I had no idea Social Darwinism had a strong foothold on the Middle Age Zeitgeist. Thanks, augurae. Now I know.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 2:33 am Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    Notice how it’s liberals and not “fascists” who are calling for whole groups of people to be ruthlessly exterminated.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 5:21 am Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    Genocide, for the purpose of preventing social darwinism. Progressives do not listen to themselves when they recite their cant.

    “So in this fashion, people, by the millions, — entire demographics, — are promoted by democracy into political entities, — a sort of entity which, we observe from a glance at the history books, runs the occasional risk of assassination.” — Karl F. Boetel

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 5:30 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    “First they came for the fascists, but I was not a fascist, so …”

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 5:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Karl F. Boetel Says:

    “I am a Peace-Man — and something more. I would fight and kill for the sake of peace. …

    “I am a Democrat — and nothing more. I believe in humanity and human rights. I recognize nothing as so sacred on earth. Rather than consent to the infringement of the most insignificant or seemingly unimportant of human rights, let races be swept from the face of the earth — let nations be dismembered — let dynasties be dethroned — let laws and governments, religions and reputations be cast out and trodden under feet of men!”

    — James Redpath, abolitionist (1859)

    These people are still around, and they’re still basically human garbage, but they’ve gotten a lot less literate. With respect, Mr. Land, they do not deserve your rebuttals: they deserve to be trolled — trolled hard; trolled repeatedly; trolled until they are so full of troll that they troll trolled in their trollolololol.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Nick” please, Kamerad.

    I don’t think trolling is very effective, because it allows idiots a strengthened sense of moral superiority. Better to dramatize the contrast between calm reason and foaming insanity as clearly as possible. Anyone paying attention then draws the desired conclusion (however much they don’t want to).

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 11:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    Have you guys got the same ad in the top right corner?!

    If it’s not due to my recent search history, it’s concerning…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The bank thing?

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 12:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    Sorry, I hadn’t read the full article. I thought it was a bit off to covertly *advertise* MM’s real name along with his tec company profile in an article on Neoreaction. But I since it uses his real name throughout the article anyway, I guess it’s OK. I mean, it’s not like anyone wants to kill him, right?

    Incidentally, I was struck by how similar his claims (government failed / the Internet failed) and his methodology (its broken & you cant fix it – Build an Internet within the Internet / build an alternative to democracy within democracy – Reboot it) is in both of these presentations. Obviously, the genius of his contribution has been in no small part to combine the wisdom of certain old books, which had been largely forgotten / falsely discredited, with the logical mindset of someone who understands systems analysis. But with the complicated concepts condensed to the extent they are here, the overall similarity of his approach to these problems is quite striking.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S8JFoT6BEM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZluMysK2B1E

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m still to be convinced that the purpose of this article was anything other than the public outing of Yarvin (I too feel weirdly treacherous using his unmasked name). It’s an incredible escalation in my opinion — almost guaranteeing a level of intense ideological conflict way beyond anything we’ve yet seen. Once you’re “out” and have to defend yourself (or perish), it’s a whole new game. Thiel was the outer limit before, but he could still just about get by as an eccentric libertarian. No way that category stretches to include CY, so his mere survival from now on demonstrates that the limits have shifted in an unexplored direction. It’s on.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 2:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    Wasn’t part of Thiel’s genius to be gay?

    If only CY had thought to be black…

    Because the concepts are too complex and elaborately elucidated to avail themself to low-level scrutiny, I expect the the ad hominem attack to follow. It will revolve around collecting and decontextualizing his non-PC jokes and comments, making him appear a buffoon rather than an ‘evil’ mastermind. At least until Neoreaction ‘breaks’ properly, then it will be a whole other ball game.

    [Reply]

    Muad'Dib Reply:

    Well there’s always the trans* option. He would not even have to do anything since questions along that line are ultra vires for progs. Maintaining a straight face is the tricky part…

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 2:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    No government is capable of comprehending optimal outcomes in detail (or even broad outline). Society’s spontaneous sorting mechanisms do a pretty good job at dealing with the situation, when left alone to do so, and certainly no superior arrangement presents itself.

    Excellent. That’s HBD and its importance to political policy in a nutshell.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Does this comment sound offensively extremist to you? It’s still in moderation after 20 hours.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    I thought augurae’s comments either the ravings of a mid-witted progressive trying to be clever, or a neoreactionary sock-puppet pretending to be a mid-witted progressive trying to be clever.

    I do hope CGY is prescient enough (and wealthy enough) to hire some muscular “help”.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

    [Reply]

    Robert Reply:

    I dunno Nick, I think a neoreactionary sock-puppet would be more literate. Wouldn’t be able to help himself. Also, sly enough to substitute “homophobe” for “retrograde.” How could he have left that out?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Well, I am happy to think horses. I am, after all, reasonably pseudonymous.

    It just didn’t sit right. I mean we had one guy (21st Century or some such) that was going around like a school marm saying “Tsk, tsk, tsk, dontcha know these people are evil, evil, evil… ‘cuz… Auschwitz.”

    And all of us NRs are like, “Hey, not us. We want to make sure Auschwitz never happens again. We just happen to ALSO want to make sure the Collectivization of Agriculture never happens again, too!”

    And then you have another guy show up and double down on the whole thing, “Hmmm…. maybe these Nazi’s are right about one thing… let’s feed them to the ovens. </snicker></crocodile chortle>” It was too clever by half in my estimation. It is of course, entirely possible the someone really could be THAT ham-handed…

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 6:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    Now might be a good time for someone with less crappy hardware than me to start archiving UR…

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 6:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Robert Says:

    Funny; Scott Alexander’s Big Idea seems to be that even if you killed all the Progs, or the Enlightened, in 1646 or 1789 or whenever, you’d still get Liberal Democracy now because Inevitable Historico-technological Forces make it happen.

    Anyone note how ‘augie’, perhaps unconsciously, writes “prior to, or after the second world war, we killed all the reactionaries and other fascists-friendly people”? Isn’t that what Stalin tried? It;s why the USSR became the shining beacon of peace, justice and mediucal advances!

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 25th, 2013 at 11:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    @

    This has been in moderation for 24 hours as well:

    theSteveJohnson
    pending
    @lilo777 @theSteveJohnson @RadishMag @julkopki

    You want the charge of “racist” to mean something – something really really bad – at the same time you’re not foolish enough to deny reality. If you were willing to deny reality you’d just answer Radish’s question with a casual “of course black people and white people are equally smart”. Instead you make an excuse about education.

    Education doesn’t explain differences in average brain volume, now does it?

    You’re trapped. Black people are not as smart on average as white people but this is so obviously true that to make “racist” contingent on noticing that makes “racist” a precondition for being smart enough to breathe so you have to move the goal posts. Now you’re a racist if you believe that these differences aren’t caused by some environmental factor. That still doesn’t work because you can’t with a straight face claim that the race that is less intelligent and has smaller brains is actually just as intelligent but has been put in bad circumstances. It’s just not credible.

    What to do? Change the subject! Throw out straw men! Switch the topic from “holding this belief makes you a racist (and that’s a really bad thing to be)” to “you’re justifying discrimination!” and “you’re claiming that there aren’t any smart black people!”.

    Not very smooth.

    Quite simple – are you a racist if you believe that black people are less intelligent than white people? (they are) Are you actually only a racist if you believe that this isn’t due to environmental factors? (it isn’t)

    You’re throwing out an accusation that amounts to “you have a true belief!”.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Brutal. I guess they’re wheeling out moderators on gurneys with blood streaming out of their eyeballs.

    It makes you wonder how much more reality venom is backed up in their comment system.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    The degree of surprise that “racist!” didn’t work is huge.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    That is now my go-to response to “das raciss:” Do you believe black people and white people are equally intelligent? What is your evidence for this belief? I will distinguish between evidence, on the one hand (e.g., an IQ test), and excuses for why all the evidence is against you, on the other (e.g., vague allusions to the Whig anti-history of Negro slavery).

    Of course what is really interesting is not that evolution applies to our species/our brains/our cognitive abilities; nor that this particular racial stereotype happens to be true — that is, this really isn’t about intelligence or white people vs black people or what have you: what’s really interesting (to me at least) is the lie, and the lies needed to cover up that lie, and who promulgates the lie, and how people unthinkingly parrot the lie…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You have to understand that they’re very sensitive little children who don’t find it easy to think straight.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    Agreed – the fact of the lie is far more important than the content of the lie (but the content of the lie isn’t unimportant).

    They really don’t distinguish between evidence for what they believe and excuses for why the evidence should be ignored. They’ve been so thoroughly trained in this that they can no longer make that distinction. In their minds once you’ve raised some doubts about the claims of racial differences you’re done because the powerful default assumption is human neurological uniformity.

    That’s why I like to hit them with the brain size difference. Even if it’s not actually the strongest argument it’s physical and measurable. How are you going to deny the importance of differences in brain matter? Skull size?

    It really freaks them out. (which is sort of fun)

    [Reply]

    David Reply:

    There are plenty of black people who are more intelligent than plenty of white people. There’s no doubt a black guy out there somewhere with a higher IQ than even you. *Gasp*.

    Your claim may well be true enough, as a rule. based on available evidence, broadly speaking, but there are so many exceptions to the rule that it calls the practical and ethical use of the rule as a means of judging particular instances and examples into question. If one deals with the individual rather than the aggregate mass, many, many things happen that confound and frustrate. The problem with such a stereotype is indeed that it so often fails in particular application.

    I realize that you’re trying to attack and break down a certain set of assumptions with your go-to response, but it would seem to rest on other, also faulty, assumptions, and as a guide for judging or interacting with individuals rather than abstract classes, it’s got big problems. Data in and of itself isn’t racist, but its unwarranted misapplication to particular cases may well be.

    I’d modify your approach if you want to do more than get some neoreactionary dap from the converted.

    “They tried to get me to hate white people, but someone would always come along and spoil it.” — T.S. Monk

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    I believe that in this case the faulty assumptions may be your assumptions about my position, particularly this: “a guide for judging or interacting with individuals rather than abstract classes.” My 2nd paragraph explains why my “claim” or “rule” or, as I prefer to say, fact, is interesting; it does not involve “particular application.”

    P.S. for the record, it is not true that there is “no doubt” a purely “black guy” with “a higher IQ than even” me

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Geez Karl, just how high IS your IQ? (Actually I’ve met Karl in person and I’d indeed be surprised if was below 150.)

    There is, for the record, no doubt black guys that are smarter than me. (But I haven’t met them.)

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    It’s actually more of a comment on the normal distribution itself (aka “bell curve”): it drops off really fast.

    Let’s say the mean black IQ — that’s purely black — is 70 (based on Africa), with a standard deviation of 12 (based on US). There’s, what, a billion black people on Earth? The question is, how high would one’s IQ have to be, before the expected number of black people with a higher IQ, drops below 1.0? (This certainly constitutes at least a tiny bit of doubt.)

    I think your estimate of 150 will do the trick. (IQs out on that end are kinda hard to measure reliably anyway, so it’s really about establishing doubt rather than fixing a number for me or anyone else.)

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    OK, well I wasn’t thinking those numbers (more mu=85, sigma=15). Using your parameters, we get 150-70/12 = about 6.6 standard deviations which is (AHA) less than 1 in 10,000,000,000. So yeah, you’d be right. Very UNlikely any “pure” blacks are smarter than KFB(150). Assuming in the Normal model models accurately and yada yada.

    Using 85/15, (150-85)/15 = down to 4.3 sigmas and we’re in pretty usuals-ville, about 1 in 100,000. So LOTS of (American) blacks smarter than KFB… tho’ they still are quite rare.

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    The sigma is definitely more like 12, not 15 (15 is the white S.D.), so I get an expected 1.4 “black” Americans above 150. By the time we get to IQ 160, we’re at 0.009. And that’s assuming a mean of 85, not, like, 80, which would yield, e.g., an expected 0.1 above 150.

    I think it is hilarious that we are actually estimating this considering that “blah blah blah black guy r a smart” is just supposed to be intimidation.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Steve Johnson:

    I have found that if you avoid links (even ones from the OP) and the exact strings “sperm”, “racist”, “Nazi” and “Hitler” it should go thru. Seems to take rayciss (raciss) with no problems. Try reformatting and republishing and then you can just delete the one held up in mod. Your thoughts are very much worth it.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    Nick B. Steves

    Thank you.

    I deleted the old post and reposted with the “raciss” spelling.

    We’ll see if it gets through.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 26th, 2013 at 3:57 am Reply | Quote
  • Reaction Ruckus | Handle's Haus Says:

    […] 25-NOV-2013, Nick Land, “Quote Notes (#46)“ […]

    Posted on December 5th, 2013 at 12:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish Says:

    […] times are had by most in the comment section. (And in the recommended reading list: the cards of a certain Carlyle […]

    Posted on January 20th, 2014 at 6:59 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment