Taboos on race realism - good or bad?

[harjit]

I've said this before, but it sounds pretty sensible that different geographically-separated endogamous groups are going to evolve differently. It would be a coincidence if they didn't, if you just intuitively thought about this without additional reading.

It's also unsurprising that non-European peoples are not going to be as successful at emulating Euro-normative standards, which happen to be the standard that all nations follow nowadays. In fact the modern system of nation-states itself is European-derived. Intelligence may be one part of this story, however, I think comprehension of the whole picture is still way beyond our ken at this stage.

Maybe some non-Euro societies do succeed at this emulation, like the Japanese who in a few specific areas even surpass the West, but this could be one of those coincidences I mention above.


This is one area where I've always deviated a bit from my fellow antis, and have in fact been admonished on a couple of occasions in the past, even going back a couple of years. What I really want to talk about in this thread is the taboos on saying or admitting all of this.

Personally, I'm ambivalent about these taboos. On one hand if something this natural and intuitive comes to mind it sounds pretty anal to have to muzzle oneself, and indicative that something is not well in the society. Even if the above is proven wrong ultimately (which would be nice), it is dishonest to categorically assert it's wrong based on our current information. A first-year sociology major saying that there are no racial differences does not do so because she understands the science to a depth that someone like (e.g.) Dan Dare doesn't, but because that's the propaganda that she's been fed. Clearly this is a bad thing.

Or it is?

It's possible that humans may not be at a stage in their emotional and "humanistic" development to be able to deal with such ideas being everyday conversation without massive levels of accompanying unfairness toward blacks and other non-Europeans. Admittedly, this possibility itself may be a strong argument for WN and racial separation (after all, if saying the truth leads to racial strife then perhaps races shouldn't be living together in the first place), but that is a separate topic. Given the reality that, for better or worse, separation is certainly not going to happen anytime soon, and possibly ever, perhaps maintaining a culture of taboos is the most practical and expedient solution for the time being? Is the number of people who specifically suffer in any major way because of this taboo small enough that the cost may be worth it?

Apart from people's emotional under-development, the average person might also be intellectually unprepared to properly process this information. Over at MSF the Japanese poster Takahata Joe has brought up more than once an example at another forum he posts at, where someone says that he now respects his black doctor less since reading in the Bell Curve that his IQ is low! T-Joe calls this "race-stupidity".

Innumeracy too is rampant in society. I myself have a math/science background as does most of my family, but when I see some of the reasoning processes of otherwise-intelligent people from other backgrounds (for example my wife, or many of the artsy designer types I've worked with) it is pretty scary to leave such sensitive matters as race-realism to their faulty interpretation. And I'm just talking about intelligent people from a non-math/science background... can one even begin to imagine what unintelligent or uneducated people are like?

Thoughts?


Edit: Here's the anecdote from T-Joe... it doesn't sound like the guy actually read The Bell Curve. It would be a very tough read for a stupid person, with lots of intense statistical analysis like regression analysis, etc.

"Race realism" always leads to race stupidity because most people cannot interpret or digest the info in a realistic way. I'll bring up this anecdote again - on another forum I visited a kid apparently read all the information being discussed about average IQ and variance and the Bell Curve, then made a post saying "Wow I don't respect my black doctor anymore because he has a low IQ." Which is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the bell curve, but that's most likely how people will grasp it - with the simplistic idea of all people of one race having a "set IQ" versus all members of another having a separate one.

[007]

And I'm just talking about intelligent people from a non-math/science background... can one even begin to imagine what unintelligent or uneducated people are like?


Harjit once again proving that he ain't nearly as smart as he thinks he is and that he's got prejudices of his own up the wazoo.

[Hakluyt]

X-posted:

I wouldn't say it's good, but it's not bad, in a way. Not only would race-focus upset the balance we currently have (I am speaking from a Canadian point of view; the present 'balance' in the US, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired), but it would also make it more difficult for an ethno-nationalist position to be articulated. Race after all shares most of its psychological characteristics with universalist humanism; both are forms of identity that develop in accordance with lowest common denominator - tabula rasa - assumptions and are not historically grounded. Both reject hierarchy based on social roles and cultural obligation and proclaim the equal worth of the individual based on his membership in a select group ('race' or 'humanity' are arbitrary, interchangable signifiers here).

My hopes for society, while definitely very far from being realised, are nonetheless more fulfilled in an aracial multicultural society than in a racialist one.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

The old taboos that are based on our ancestors' experience and wisdom should be respected and never broken lightly. The new false taboos created in the culture by Jews that distort reality and make European survival more difficult should mostly be broken. They should be broken intelligently and kindly, but broken and broken often.

The ancient taboos, which Jews always want us to break -- such as the taboo against race-mixing and pedophilia, etc. -- should be thoughtfully respected.

[1-800]

Yes, it's a bad thing. Only the conformist, ant-like Asiatics could think that suppression of knowledge for the sake of social stability is a 'good thing' -- this inevitably leads to the totalitarian suppression of dissenting opinion and the jailing of those who express such opinions.


Takahata Joe (shades of Tokyo Kid?) say: We love it when gullible Euros act aracially. Make it much easier for us Asians. Now let more of us into your nations, round-eye, or you are stupid and hater.

Thanks, but no thanks, Joe!

[cyborg]

a more comprehensive survey http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39637

[Empress Cheesatine]

Harjit once again proving that he ain't nearly as smart as he thinks he is and that he's got prejudices of his own up the wazoo.

I'd say he's experiencing some kind of internal struggle with his liberal idealism and what he's seeing in the real world.

[Felix the Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute fliers opposing the draft during World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I). Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger)" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!". Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.

Schenck was later limited by Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio), which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) (e.g. a riot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot)), the test which remains until this day. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

[007]

I'd say he's experiencing some kind of internal struggle with his liberal idealism and what he's seeing in the real world.

With a little help from the Phora. :dance2:

[Starr]

Given the reality that, for better or worse, separation is certainly not going to happen anytime soon, and possibly ever, perhaps maintaining a culture of taboos is the most practical and expedient solution for the time being? Is the number of people who specifically suffer in any major way because of this taboo small enough that the cost may be worth it?

No. People of all races are suffering due to this taboo. Whites have to live in nations with increasing numbers of people whose behavioral patterns and standards are so different from their own. We have to deal with the crime, poverty and other negativities that accompany certain peoples. And with their numbers increasing we also have to deal with our own nations turning into something that will continue to become more and more different from the ones that we built or are native to. Non whites have to deal with being expected to live under standards and rules set up by and for whites. Standards and rules that are not representative of who they are and how they want to live. Non whites, blacks, specifically will continue to lag behind in trying to live up to this and without certain taboos being allowed to be discussed, will continue to look to the idea that whites and racism are keeping them from reaching their potential. Whites will continue to wonder why they can't be just like them only with darker skin. I don't think it is at all an unlikely possibility that whites who have no real understanding of racial differences have more negative feelings about minorites than those who do. They might look at minorities as being perfectly capable of being "just like themselves" in every way, yet consciously refusing to do so. This all creates an enormous amount of racial strife. So no the amount of people who do suffer due to things we cannot talk about and therefore better understand is not small.

Apart from people's emotional under-development, the average person might also be intellectually unprepared to properly process this information. Over at MSF the Japanese poster Takahata Joe has brought up more than once an example at another forum he posts at, where someone says that he now respects his black doctor less since reading in the Bell Curve that his IQ is low! T-Joe calls this "race-stupidity".

I don't think that most people who truly read about and understand racial differences are going to react in this way. The either will be intelligent enough to understand that while there are group differences in intelligence, this does not mean that every single member of whatever group is going to perfectly represent that pattern, or they will have gotten to know that person enough to realize that this pattern is not representive of him as in individual.

[007]

The either will be intelligent enough to understand that while there are group differences in intelligence, this does not mean that every single member of whatever group is going to perfectly represent that pattern, or they will have gotten to know that person enough to realize that this pattern is not representive of him as in individual.

I'd say that goes for "uneducated" people as a rule.( Harjit, your prejudice is showing) Most uneducated people I know pay little attention to scientific studies on any subject, and wouldn't be able to dissect one in the manner of a university grad, but they are quite shrewd with what they experience personally. Red Indians are reckoned to be drunkards in this area, with good reason, but nobody believes that every single one of them is an alcoholic.