But you seem to attribute this policy proposal to me:
"Immigration by inferior races and intermarriage between members of superior and inferior races should be discouraged to prevent the reduction of the genetic fitness of superior races."
Christians have a habit of retroactively convincing themselves that they were to prime resistors of everything that didn’t turn out well. Like, oh we were the true and best anti-nazis. I mean, obviously false because you would need a special retroactive definition of who counts as Christian. But it’s interesting how they have these communities where they just repeat feel-good falsehoods till it’s accepted as common knowledge.
Lind's argument can be summarised as wanting to be more liberal and democratic than the liberal democratic elite. This is a key feature of contemporary right-wing populism; the obsession with calling out hypocrisy by claiming the liberal elite don't live up to their democratic liberal ideals. Which puts Lind and right-wing populists in the position of being the true liberal democrats. Lomez is correct, Lind and other right-wing populists want a Retvrn to previous forms of liberalism... previous forms of liberalism that led to wokeness.
They're not brave enough to think outside the liberal paradigm or entertain ideas that challenge its presuppositions. Therefore they are left to try to ram in their religious conservatism within the framework of liberal democracy, even though it won't work in practice. And of course, if anyone opposes this political project they are part of the sinister anti-populist coalition comprising all of Lind's enemies.
It's just true that conservatives and right-wing populists are more egalitarian than the mainstream left, and I am sure they would wear that as a badge of pride even though it's a self-own. The rising tide of what I call "Uneducated Warm Body Conservatism" will lead to more events like Jan 6, not a populist revolution that will transform America into a Christian working-class paradise.
I see Lind and co. wanting a generalized reduction in workaday uncertainty and greater predictability/stability for most Americans, economically and socially. To tilt the distribution of power back toward labor and normie cultural dispositions. It's a stretch to say that's the same thing, ultimately, as supporting BLM or gender reassignment.
Their New Deal liberalism preceded wokeness, but it's hardly some kind of dunk to say that the former caused the latter anymore than it is to say that the conservatism that existed *before* the New Deal is to blame for the New Deal. (How far back into the mists of time does the blame go?)
The fundamental issue is that the elite want to be unchained from middle class christian morality. They definitely want sexual freedom and they kind of want the ability to engage in a few hedonistic forays.
It turns out that the underclass wants those things too, but they need government subsidy to make up the consequences. And it turns out that a lot of that government subsidy comes in the form of professional services provided by the upper classes!
So you've got a high low coalition that wants to be free from the shackles of middle class morality and wouldn't mind so much if the middle class paid for it too.
I don't think a "multi-racial working class" made up of 2023 Americans is going to be able to stop that, but I get why someone would want to try. Maybe if Lind understood genetics more he would get why his forays deeper into the working class side of the Bell Curve will have diminishing returns.
This is a great explanation. In my view, the solution is just to accept that we have multiple classes in America, that we shouldn't expect different classes to have different standards of living. After all, everything we've tried to do to 'solve' the 'problem' has backfired.
I think that this limitation doesn’t really matter though because I’m concerned with how genes affect differences in personality in the West, where I am. This other person says, no, if the metric isn’t universally valid, then (1) it’s not clear what it’s actually measuring and (2) because non-westerners have genes too, it can’t be used to assess a genetic contribution to its purported output. From what I can tell, he thinks that, because conscientiousness doesn’t replicate outside the West, conscientiousness is a social construct, which, to him, means that it can have zero genetic contribution. To me, his view seems retarded. First, as everything I do in the West, I’m concerned with the relationship between variation in conscientiousness among Westerns, and how the relates to genetic variation among Westerners. So, even if conscientiousness isn’t universal for whatever reason, genetic or cultural or other, the conscientiousness studies you cited are fine with the Western context. Second, I think it’s fine that a socially defined output has a genetic contribution??? Like time it takes to run “100 m.” But he was insulted by the analogy of a personality trait to sports? He concedes that some people are harder working than others, and parents tend to resemble children, but he cannot accept a genetic contribution. (He posits cultural transmission or rational or agentic responses to the environment as an alternative mechanisms. I’m am not sure how these alternatives are gene-free, but I am trying to represent his views fairly.)
Anyway, I am wrong here? I am concerned that I should de-friend this person IRL. He is a wordcel, which is a big minus in my book, and he went to a sketchy college, but he did help me out a few years ago when I got in a fight. But I also feel like he’s crazy? On a gut level, I don’t want to talk to him. If this a blank-slate freak out, will it pass?
I don't think there is too much daylight between what he outlines and Hanania, etc.
1) Eugenicons don't believe in forced sterilization, but they certainly believe in voluntary eugenics. And they would probably be in favor of trying to get poors to agree voluntarily to getting IUDs, abortions, etc. Many wouldn't object to linking state welfare to sterilization. No violation of the non-aggression principal there.
2) While they wouldn't force anyone to marry or prevent them from marrying, I think all would agree with the statement that pairings amongst the eugenic class creates eugenic offspring and those offspring create human progress. Hanania would look on that approvingly and Murray with trepidation, but they wouldn't dispute the facts.
3) View on dysgenic immigration are mixed in this group. Hanania has changed his mind on immigration because he no longer thinks it makes socialism/crime/dysfunction inevitable, but others like Murray, Sailer, Kirkegaard, Jones, etc disagree. If Hanania could be convinced that demographics were destiny then he would oppose it.
Personally, I think Hanania's conversion relates more to how being pro-immigration is necessary for him to get access to mainstream revenue sources then a dispassionate review of the evidence.
4) On democracy it should be pretty obvious that people like Bryan and Hanania are very anti-democracy. In fact Hanania's conversion on immigration seems to relate to the idea that democracy can be easily subverted and is meaningless.
His solution to crime is Bukele. This is a man that enlisted the military to surround the legislator, entered with armed men, and told them to vote the way he wanted. When the Supreme Court objected to his moves he dismissed them. He's basically created a strongman dictatorship along the same lines Putin did, and using the same rhetoric (cleaning up the streets, etc).
I happen to support Bukele, but only because I think being ruled by a strongman (or strongmen) is inevitable for dysgenic countries. Bukele is superior to rule by gang kingpins, but it's not a great solution. You can't lament Jan 6th and love Bukele.
Being forced to choose between different kind of lawlessness is a bad choice to be put in. It is the kind of thing Charles Murray specifically warned about happening in The Bell Curve when he talked about immigration. Saying "we can solve crime if we empower a strongmen" is something I already knew but has a lot of issues. I'd prefer to just have a country of naturally law abiding Eugenicons that don't need a strongman to be kept in line.
Moreover, the entire idea that our system is superior to say the Chinese is based on the idea that democracy and checks and balances stops things like COVID in China from happening. But of course how did Bukele first come into conflict with the Supreme Court. When they told him that his draconian COVID lockdowns were unconstitutional and that he couldn't just grab random people off the street and throw them in concentration camps because they were outside when he didn't want them to be outside. The same issues with imprisoning anyone with a tattoo can also be used against anybody Bukele doesn't like for any reason. That's how strongmen work, it feels awesome when the do what you want and sucks when they don't.
With socialism it's the same story. Putting aside the empirically unsound "diversity induced social distrust will shrink government" argument, Hanania mostly seems to believe that the elite should just cut the government because Hanania makes a good argument and democracy is easy to subvert. His plan for entitlement reform is "lie about it and do it anyway".
Fair enough, but why hasn't it happened already? Why haven't a bunch of enlightened centrist reforms happened already. Could it be that democracy does impose limits on elite incentives and actions? Could it be that the demographics of democracy impact those limits and incentives. Does the deep blue-ening of the coasts and cities not show this? Does Reagan 2.0 (Romney) losing with a higher white vote share then Reagan 1.0 not show this?
And if we did do away with the limits and incentives of democracy on the elite, how do we not just replicate the situation in China? Isn't it a good thing in some cases that the elite is limited.
5) Anyway, my response to Eugenicons is that it's a great idea. I support most of what he lists, and the only real difference you're pointing out is that Eugenicons are more into voluntary action than involuntary (with the issue of immigration being complex).
If I were to point to a something the article gets at, Hanania has snearing contempt for whoever he decides is lower than him and a superiority complex. You can get a lot of the same stuff with a lot more humility and empathy from a Murray or Sailer, and I've always thought on Hanania as edge lord regurgitations of Sailer designed for click bait. If you want takes on this problem see here:
I don't begrudge Hanania doing what he has to do to make a good living. But I don't see him adding much to the conversation. His views on this stuff are pretty confused and contradictory and he doesn't really like having honest debates with those that disagree with him because doing so might expose these problems (and risk his revenue sources).
Nice comparison and contrast Brian. I'm m still pondering your critique.
Thanks. Good points.
But you seem to attribute this policy proposal to me:
"Immigration by inferior races and intermarriage between members of superior and inferior races should be discouraged to prevent the reduction of the genetic fitness of superior races."
That doesn't much sound like me.
That's true, it's definitely a caricatured argument of the immigration restrictionist argument.
I'll update that to be clearer. To make sure, you do support immigration restriction, right?
One more thing. Has Bo Weingard done his 23&me? I’m getting octaroon vibes from him.
Christians have a habit of retroactively convincing themselves that they were to prime resistors of everything that didn’t turn out well. Like, oh we were the true and best anti-nazis. I mean, obviously false because you would need a special retroactive definition of who counts as Christian. But it’s interesting how they have these communities where they just repeat feel-good falsehoods till it’s accepted as common knowledge.
Lind's argument can be summarised as wanting to be more liberal and democratic than the liberal democratic elite. This is a key feature of contemporary right-wing populism; the obsession with calling out hypocrisy by claiming the liberal elite don't live up to their democratic liberal ideals. Which puts Lind and right-wing populists in the position of being the true liberal democrats. Lomez is correct, Lind and other right-wing populists want a Retvrn to previous forms of liberalism... previous forms of liberalism that led to wokeness.
They're not brave enough to think outside the liberal paradigm or entertain ideas that challenge its presuppositions. Therefore they are left to try to ram in their religious conservatism within the framework of liberal democracy, even though it won't work in practice. And of course, if anyone opposes this political project they are part of the sinister anti-populist coalition comprising all of Lind's enemies.
It's just true that conservatives and right-wing populists are more egalitarian than the mainstream left, and I am sure they would wear that as a badge of pride even though it's a self-own. The rising tide of what I call "Uneducated Warm Body Conservatism" will lead to more events like Jan 6, not a populist revolution that will transform America into a Christian working-class paradise.
I see Lind and co. wanting a generalized reduction in workaday uncertainty and greater predictability/stability for most Americans, economically and socially. To tilt the distribution of power back toward labor and normie cultural dispositions. It's a stretch to say that's the same thing, ultimately, as supporting BLM or gender reassignment.
Their New Deal liberalism preceded wokeness, but it's hardly some kind of dunk to say that the former caused the latter anymore than it is to say that the conservatism that existed *before* the New Deal is to blame for the New Deal. (How far back into the mists of time does the blame go?)
The fundamental issue is that the elite want to be unchained from middle class christian morality. They definitely want sexual freedom and they kind of want the ability to engage in a few hedonistic forays.
It turns out that the underclass wants those things too, but they need government subsidy to make up the consequences. And it turns out that a lot of that government subsidy comes in the form of professional services provided by the upper classes!
So you've got a high low coalition that wants to be free from the shackles of middle class morality and wouldn't mind so much if the middle class paid for it too.
I don't think a "multi-racial working class" made up of 2023 Americans is going to be able to stop that, but I get why someone would want to try. Maybe if Lind understood genetics more he would get why his forays deeper into the working class side of the Bell Curve will have diminishing returns.
This is a great explanation. In my view, the solution is just to accept that we have multiple classes in America, that we shouldn't expect different classes to have different standards of living. After all, everything we've tried to do to 'solve' the 'problem' has backfired.
Shouldn't that read "we shouldn't expect different classes NOT to have different standards of living"? Or have I misunderstood you?
yes, my bad
Someone suggested to me that big5 personality traits don’t always replicate outside of the West, which seems to be true. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5226. Does this matter???
I think that this limitation doesn’t really matter though because I’m concerned with how genes affect differences in personality in the West, where I am. This other person says, no, if the metric isn’t universally valid, then (1) it’s not clear what it’s actually measuring and (2) because non-westerners have genes too, it can’t be used to assess a genetic contribution to its purported output. From what I can tell, he thinks that, because conscientiousness doesn’t replicate outside the West, conscientiousness is a social construct, which, to him, means that it can have zero genetic contribution. To me, his view seems retarded. First, as everything I do in the West, I’m concerned with the relationship between variation in conscientiousness among Westerns, and how the relates to genetic variation among Westerners. So, even if conscientiousness isn’t universal for whatever reason, genetic or cultural or other, the conscientiousness studies you cited are fine with the Western context. Second, I think it’s fine that a socially defined output has a genetic contribution??? Like time it takes to run “100 m.” But he was insulted by the analogy of a personality trait to sports? He concedes that some people are harder working than others, and parents tend to resemble children, but he cannot accept a genetic contribution. (He posits cultural transmission or rational or agentic responses to the environment as an alternative mechanisms. I’m am not sure how these alternatives are gene-free, but I am trying to represent his views fairly.)
Anyway, I am wrong here? I am concerned that I should de-friend this person IRL. He is a wordcel, which is a big minus in my book, and he went to a sketchy college, but he did help me out a few years ago when I got in a fight. But I also feel like he’s crazy? On a gut level, I don’t want to talk to him. If this a blank-slate freak out, will it pass?
I don't think there is too much daylight between what he outlines and Hanania, etc.
1) Eugenicons don't believe in forced sterilization, but they certainly believe in voluntary eugenics. And they would probably be in favor of trying to get poors to agree voluntarily to getting IUDs, abortions, etc. Many wouldn't object to linking state welfare to sterilization. No violation of the non-aggression principal there.
2) While they wouldn't force anyone to marry or prevent them from marrying, I think all would agree with the statement that pairings amongst the eugenic class creates eugenic offspring and those offspring create human progress. Hanania would look on that approvingly and Murray with trepidation, but they wouldn't dispute the facts.
3) View on dysgenic immigration are mixed in this group. Hanania has changed his mind on immigration because he no longer thinks it makes socialism/crime/dysfunction inevitable, but others like Murray, Sailer, Kirkegaard, Jones, etc disagree. If Hanania could be convinced that demographics were destiny then he would oppose it.
Personally, I think Hanania's conversion relates more to how being pro-immigration is necessary for him to get access to mainstream revenue sources then a dispassionate review of the evidence.
4) On democracy it should be pretty obvious that people like Bryan and Hanania are very anti-democracy. In fact Hanania's conversion on immigration seems to relate to the idea that democracy can be easily subverted and is meaningless.
His solution to crime is Bukele. This is a man that enlisted the military to surround the legislator, entered with armed men, and told them to vote the way he wanted. When the Supreme Court objected to his moves he dismissed them. He's basically created a strongman dictatorship along the same lines Putin did, and using the same rhetoric (cleaning up the streets, etc).
I happen to support Bukele, but only because I think being ruled by a strongman (or strongmen) is inevitable for dysgenic countries. Bukele is superior to rule by gang kingpins, but it's not a great solution. You can't lament Jan 6th and love Bukele.
Being forced to choose between different kind of lawlessness is a bad choice to be put in. It is the kind of thing Charles Murray specifically warned about happening in The Bell Curve when he talked about immigration. Saying "we can solve crime if we empower a strongmen" is something I already knew but has a lot of issues. I'd prefer to just have a country of naturally law abiding Eugenicons that don't need a strongman to be kept in line.
Moreover, the entire idea that our system is superior to say the Chinese is based on the idea that democracy and checks and balances stops things like COVID in China from happening. But of course how did Bukele first come into conflict with the Supreme Court. When they told him that his draconian COVID lockdowns were unconstitutional and that he couldn't just grab random people off the street and throw them in concentration camps because they were outside when he didn't want them to be outside. The same issues with imprisoning anyone with a tattoo can also be used against anybody Bukele doesn't like for any reason. That's how strongmen work, it feels awesome when the do what you want and sucks when they don't.
With socialism it's the same story. Putting aside the empirically unsound "diversity induced social distrust will shrink government" argument, Hanania mostly seems to believe that the elite should just cut the government because Hanania makes a good argument and democracy is easy to subvert. His plan for entitlement reform is "lie about it and do it anyway".
Fair enough, but why hasn't it happened already? Why haven't a bunch of enlightened centrist reforms happened already. Could it be that democracy does impose limits on elite incentives and actions? Could it be that the demographics of democracy impact those limits and incentives. Does the deep blue-ening of the coasts and cities not show this? Does Reagan 2.0 (Romney) losing with a higher white vote share then Reagan 1.0 not show this?
And if we did do away with the limits and incentives of democracy on the elite, how do we not just replicate the situation in China? Isn't it a good thing in some cases that the elite is limited.
5) Anyway, my response to Eugenicons is that it's a great idea. I support most of what he lists, and the only real difference you're pointing out is that Eugenicons are more into voluntary action than involuntary (with the issue of immigration being complex).
If I were to point to a something the article gets at, Hanania has snearing contempt for whoever he decides is lower than him and a superiority complex. You can get a lot of the same stuff with a lot more humility and empathy from a Murray or Sailer, and I've always thought on Hanania as edge lord regurgitations of Sailer designed for click bait. If you want takes on this problem see here:
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/links-to-consider-89
https://birdman.substack.com/p/hanania-still-sucks
I don't begrudge Hanania doing what he has to do to make a good living. But I don't see him adding much to the conversation. His views on this stuff are pretty confused and contradictory and he doesn't really like having honest debates with those that disagree with him because doing so might expose these problems (and risk his revenue sources).
Lind's Eugenicon essay is an excellent demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I feel like Iceland was a blood-feuding backwater for a long time? Idk. Maybe if they went back to kingship they’d go back to behaving like Vikings.