Excellent essay....just one quibble. "low-achieving groups tend to blame high-achieving groups for their relative lack of achievement." Well actually No - in the Alice-through-the-looking-glass world of Woke - it's more a case of the high achieving group blaming their own (white) ethnic peers for somehow causing (via mysterious fabled processes like 'white privilege') the low-achievement of certain other ethnic groups.
indeed, it is a quasi-nazi rethoric on the part of the Left against White People. The end goal will logically be their extermination. However, the "liberal" democracy tries to achieve this by outbreeding and mixing, not by genocide.
Terrific post. I really like Noah Carl's 'tone'. By never ranting and always weighing up the good and bad of both sides, you get the idea you can trust him. He is the kind of writer I would immediately think of if I wanted to persuade a wokester to come over to the dark side. Noah sounds like such a totally reasonable bloke and thus wouldn't scare the horses.
Noah, thanks for another excellent article. With a balanced, realistic view of diversity.
"There are two obvious ways in which diversity does qualify as a strength: food and the Olympics. Having people of different ethnicities around means there’s more choice of restaurants. On top of that, it means there are more body types represented in the population, the better for maximising your country’s Olympic medal count."
But in reality, neither is of benefit to our civilization. Once you have the recipes for different ethnic foods, any decent chef can duplicate them. And Olympic medals are a vanity item. Competitive athleticism is a health factor for the participants that does not improve the populace's lives.
"Contrary to the impression you’d get listening to politicians’ speeches (or watching commercials on TV) people from different ethnic groups living in the same place do not always get along. They look different from one another; they hold different beliefs; they practice different religions; and they interpret events differently. All these differences are sources of tension."
This is indeed true. Even differences in human traits in a homogeneous racial or ethnic group, such as intelligence and integrity, cause profound tension.
“There’s a certain amount of evidence – which my frenemy Richard Hanania likes to mention – that countries with greater ethnic diversity have smaller welfare states.”
Sweden was once the Utopia of the non-communist Left but the Swedish welfare state had some hard times in the 90s and the social democrats had to curb the excesses of the welfare state. Yes, even without diversity, white people can learn from their mistakes.
"While the free-market system that gives rise to inequality is arguably a strength, the resulting inequality is not. Which is why we don’t prevent rich people from giving away their wealth."
Strongly disagree. Inequality is not a negative side effect of free markets, it is essential to how it works. Inequality in prices, wages and wealth act as incentives to redirect our efforts in more fruitful ways, and inequality also acts as a signal on opportunities and change. Absent inequality in profit, price, wage and so on, there is no free market, and the greater the inequality the more powerful the signal and incentive.
We don’t prevent rich people from giving away their wealth, because it is theirs to do with as they choose.
Was this footnote some kind of test to see if we were paying attention?
Glad you questioned this. I read that sentence over several times, trying to get the direct or implied meaning. My understanding was the same as yours.
The way to make lemonade from lemons is racial competitiveness.
I trained it sprinting and other track and field events as an exercise system not for competition in order to physically compete with blacks.
I studied mathematics and electrical engineering and computer programming in order to compete with Asians.
I study macroeconomics and the history of finance and I I'm invested across several asset classes in order to compete with the final boss group. The Bowser of peoples.
Racial competitiveness is the way forward it will not get you in trouble with the law you will be more personally successful you will have more white children and they will be more successful. And the people who inflicted this on us are going to regret attacking us.
Absolutely. In fact, as a high-openness, curious person, this was one of the main considerations that led me to rethink my stance on immigration and move toward restrictionism many years ago. I love experiencing other cultures and peoples and while economic and technological forces are inevitably creating greater homogenization and ironing out differences, we don't need to speed up the process.
But never have heard the precise argument in print, so thank you for this and keep up the good work!
Very great article! Wouldn't be much point in me traveling to another country if the only difference is the weather. Sadly, a lot of people seem to only like traveling for the different weather anyways, so that argument won't bite on the charter people.
On a global scale, a form of protectionism is needed to ensure the survival of diverse peoples. Policy that is local-first and prescribes protections of artifacts and specialities is needed.
At a national level, the cosmopolitan knot which is driving homogenization needs to be undone.
You're so dumb that you start by contradicting yourself in the first statement. First of all, there is no such thing as "Western ethnicity/culture/civilization". The term "West" simply doesn't exist in anthropology, it's a political term that currently refers to various ethnicities from countries dominated by the American government.
And culturally too, since the Abrahamic religions come from the Fertile Crescent (not to mention the fact that Protestantism is basically Islamic principles in Christian clothing). And even before the Abrahamic religions, Western Roman culture (where the term "West" came from) is descended from Etruscan culture, which like Greek culture is descended from Phoenician culture, which is descended from Mesopotamian culture (with some Egyptian influences).
You Anglos/Germanics are Barbarian Invaders who simply have no civilization of your own. You are part of the Mediterranean cultural sphere that originated in the Fertile Crescent. Deal with it.
And then there are the Irish, who were also racially discriminated against. The Finns, who were officially classified as "Asian" only because they were poor (they only became "white" a few decades ago, when they became rich). And the Hungarians, who are Uralic peoples who know their origins.
And before you come up with pseudo-science and linguistic hypotheses about "Indo-Europeans". You should know that their parents were Eurasiatics, who were Mongoloids from Siberia, just like their ancestors (haplogroup R is of Siberian Mongoloid origin). You're only white on your mother's side (mtDNA proves it).
And among the "indo-europeans", the purest are Iranians from the mountains of Afghanistan, so are you going to say that their isolationism and incest was a good thing?
And before you attack me with old clichés, I'm not even a leftist or egalitarian (although I'm not a conservative either). But anyone who knows history and has the capacity for critical reflection knows that the periods of most rapid progress in history have always been accompanied by diversity and syncretism of cultures.
That's why the USA dominates the false continent of "europe", which hasn't been able to innovate for decades. That's why there were more innovations in 'europe' between the 16th and 18th century than there have been since the Barbarian Invasions. And then there's the Islamic Golden Age, the Renaissance, the Phoenician navigations, etc. It was all due to foreign influences and syncretism, which multiplies ideas rather than just adding them up.
The west does exist dumbass. It existed long before christianity and greek culture doesn't descend from the phoenicians. This false theory has been debuncked times and times again along with all the afrocentrists theories.
Hoplogroup P comes from the Caucasus (hence the term "caucasian").
And the whole "irish/finns/hungarians weren't considerer whites" is just a tired 19th century argument.
"But anyone who knows history and has the capacity for critical reflection knows that the periods of most rapid progress in history have always been accompanied by diversity and syncretism of cultures"
Nope. Spain became a world power when it expelled muslims. France and Britain were basically ethnostates when they dominated the world. No foreign infleunce.
In a post about diversity, you really should cite Robert Putnam and his books and articles. He did the definitely study on how diversity decreases social trust in "Bowling Alone".
Would someone at Aporia be able to compile some criticisms of anthropology from the perspective of evolutionary psychology or sociobiology more generally? I have a friend who more-or-less disregards evo psych, claiming that it is not consistent with anthropology, but then again I see how progressive most anthropologists are, and it just strikes me that there's something they must be missing for the field to so strongly skew left and scholars to embrace ideologies which seem so incongruent with so many modern human civilizations. For all their preaching about there not being a universal human nature, which I can understand on some levels but disagree on others, the consistency with which their aspirations for future society seem to just not mesh with modern cultures almost seems like a tally for there being something that universally doesn't work for human civilizations at scale.
I tried searching for such criticisms, but I only ever get results for criticisms of evo psych rather than criticisms being made by evo psych. And I'm nowhere near informed enough about either field to adjudicate that for myself; I just have my gut impressions which I am careful not to discard too hastily.
How would you explain the nation of Brazil, where no matter the skin tone, everyone has the same beliefs and speaks the same language, even having the same "culture" ? I'm very curious about your opinion on this.
Excellent essay....just one quibble. "low-achieving groups tend to blame high-achieving groups for their relative lack of achievement." Well actually No - in the Alice-through-the-looking-glass world of Woke - it's more a case of the high achieving group blaming their own (white) ethnic peers for somehow causing (via mysterious fabled processes like 'white privilege') the low-achievement of certain other ethnic groups.
The source of this rhetoric is not the ethnic peers of White people
Yes but it's considered bad taste to name the actual source of this rhetoric.
indeed, it is a quasi-nazi rethoric on the part of the Left against White People. The end goal will logically be their extermination. However, the "liberal" democracy tries to achieve this by outbreeding and mixing, not by genocide.
Terrific post. I really like Noah Carl's 'tone'. By never ranting and always weighing up the good and bad of both sides, you get the idea you can trust him. He is the kind of writer I would immediately think of if I wanted to persuade a wokester to come over to the dark side. Noah sounds like such a totally reasonable bloke and thus wouldn't scare the horses.
Noah, thanks for another excellent article. With a balanced, realistic view of diversity.
"There are two obvious ways in which diversity does qualify as a strength: food and the Olympics. Having people of different ethnicities around means there’s more choice of restaurants. On top of that, it means there are more body types represented in the population, the better for maximising your country’s Olympic medal count."
But in reality, neither is of benefit to our civilization. Once you have the recipes for different ethnic foods, any decent chef can duplicate them. And Olympic medals are a vanity item. Competitive athleticism is a health factor for the participants that does not improve the populace's lives.
"Contrary to the impression you’d get listening to politicians’ speeches (or watching commercials on TV) people from different ethnic groups living in the same place do not always get along. They look different from one another; they hold different beliefs; they practice different religions; and they interpret events differently. All these differences are sources of tension."
This is indeed true. Even differences in human traits in a homogeneous racial or ethnic group, such as intelligence and integrity, cause profound tension.
“There’s a certain amount of evidence – which my frenemy Richard Hanania likes to mention – that countries with greater ethnic diversity have smaller welfare states.”
Sweden was once the Utopia of the non-communist Left but the Swedish welfare state had some hard times in the 90s and the social democrats had to curb the excesses of the welfare state. Yes, even without diversity, white people can learn from their mistakes.
Sweden also got COVID right, which it probably would t have done if it was more integrated with globohomo and spoke English.
Also, we spend as much as Sweden when you include Employer Group Health Insurance as “government” and we get a lot less back.
"While the free-market system that gives rise to inequality is arguably a strength, the resulting inequality is not. Which is why we don’t prevent rich people from giving away their wealth."
Strongly disagree. Inequality is not a negative side effect of free markets, it is essential to how it works. Inequality in prices, wages and wealth act as incentives to redirect our efforts in more fruitful ways, and inequality also acts as a signal on opportunities and change. Absent inequality in profit, price, wage and so on, there is no free market, and the greater the inequality the more powerful the signal and incentive.
We don’t prevent rich people from giving away their wealth, because it is theirs to do with as they choose.
Was this footnote some kind of test to see if we were paying attention?
Glad you questioned this. I read that sentence over several times, trying to get the direct or implied meaning. My understanding was the same as yours.
The way to make lemonade from lemons is racial competitiveness.
I trained it sprinting and other track and field events as an exercise system not for competition in order to physically compete with blacks.
I studied mathematics and electrical engineering and computer programming in order to compete with Asians.
I study macroeconomics and the history of finance and I I'm invested across several asset classes in order to compete with the final boss group. The Bowser of peoples.
Racial competitiveness is the way forward it will not get you in trouble with the law you will be more personally successful you will have more white children and they will be more successful. And the people who inflicted this on us are going to regret attacking us.
Other common sense and empirical based article that are needed in the woke mess white countries are becoming
Absolutely. In fact, as a high-openness, curious person, this was one of the main considerations that led me to rethink my stance on immigration and move toward restrictionism many years ago. I love experiencing other cultures and peoples and while economic and technological forces are inevitably creating greater homogenization and ironing out differences, we don't need to speed up the process.
But never have heard the precise argument in print, so thank you for this and keep up the good work!
Very great article! Wouldn't be much point in me traveling to another country if the only difference is the weather. Sadly, a lot of people seem to only like traveling for the different weather anyways, so that argument won't bite on the charter people.
On a global scale, a form of protectionism is needed to ensure the survival of diverse peoples. Policy that is local-first and prescribes protections of artifacts and specialities is needed.
At a national level, the cosmopolitan knot which is driving homogenization needs to be undone.
"god-fearing", which god? And "the constitution" of what exactly? Proper capitalization is proper grammar.
Otherwise agree with the main point of the essay.
You're so dumb that you start by contradicting yourself in the first statement. First of all, there is no such thing as "Western ethnicity/culture/civilization". The term "West" simply doesn't exist in anthropology, it's a political term that currently refers to various ethnicities from countries dominated by the American government.
And culturally too, since the Abrahamic religions come from the Fertile Crescent (not to mention the fact that Protestantism is basically Islamic principles in Christian clothing). And even before the Abrahamic religions, Western Roman culture (where the term "West" came from) is descended from Etruscan culture, which like Greek culture is descended from Phoenician culture, which is descended from Mesopotamian culture (with some Egyptian influences).
You Anglos/Germanics are Barbarian Invaders who simply have no civilization of your own. You are part of the Mediterranean cultural sphere that originated in the Fertile Crescent. Deal with it.
And then there are the Irish, who were also racially discriminated against. The Finns, who were officially classified as "Asian" only because they were poor (they only became "white" a few decades ago, when they became rich). And the Hungarians, who are Uralic peoples who know their origins.
And before you come up with pseudo-science and linguistic hypotheses about "Indo-Europeans". You should know that their parents were Eurasiatics, who were Mongoloids from Siberia, just like their ancestors (haplogroup R is of Siberian Mongoloid origin). You're only white on your mother's side (mtDNA proves it).
And among the "indo-europeans", the purest are Iranians from the mountains of Afghanistan, so are you going to say that their isolationism and incest was a good thing?
And before you attack me with old clichés, I'm not even a leftist or egalitarian (although I'm not a conservative either). But anyone who knows history and has the capacity for critical reflection knows that the periods of most rapid progress in history have always been accompanied by diversity and syncretism of cultures.
That's why the USA dominates the false continent of "europe", which hasn't been able to innovate for decades. That's why there were more innovations in 'europe' between the 16th and 18th century than there have been since the Barbarian Invasions. And then there's the Islamic Golden Age, the Renaissance, the Phoenician navigations, etc. It was all due to foreign influences and syncretism, which multiplies ideas rather than just adding them up.
Another greasy Indian who lashes out online.
And modern-day Iranians aren't exactly pure indo-europeans. They are mostly mixed-race with semitic and turkic populations
The west does exist dumbass. It existed long before christianity and greek culture doesn't descend from the phoenicians. This false theory has been debuncked times and times again along with all the afrocentrists theories.
Hoplogroup P comes from the Caucasus (hence the term "caucasian").
And the whole "irish/finns/hungarians weren't considerer whites" is just a tired 19th century argument.
"But anyone who knows history and has the capacity for critical reflection knows that the periods of most rapid progress in history have always been accompanied by diversity and syncretism of cultures"
Nope. Spain became a world power when it expelled muslims. France and Britain were basically ethnostates when they dominated the world. No foreign infleunce.
In a post about diversity, you really should cite Robert Putnam and his books and articles. He did the definitely study on how diversity decreases social trust in "Bowling Alone".
As you know, diversity destroying social trust has led to libertarianism in such places as California and Detroit.
Oh wait...
Would someone at Aporia be able to compile some criticisms of anthropology from the perspective of evolutionary psychology or sociobiology more generally? I have a friend who more-or-less disregards evo psych, claiming that it is not consistent with anthropology, but then again I see how progressive most anthropologists are, and it just strikes me that there's something they must be missing for the field to so strongly skew left and scholars to embrace ideologies which seem so incongruent with so many modern human civilizations. For all their preaching about there not being a universal human nature, which I can understand on some levels but disagree on others, the consistency with which their aspirations for future society seem to just not mesh with modern cultures almost seems like a tally for there being something that universally doesn't work for human civilizations at scale.
I tried searching for such criticisms, but I only ever get results for criticisms of evo psych rather than criticisms being made by evo psych. And I'm nowhere near informed enough about either field to adjudicate that for myself; I just have my gut impressions which I am careful not to discard too hastily.
How would you explain the nation of Brazil, where no matter the skin tone, everyone has the same beliefs and speaks the same language, even having the same "culture" ? I'm very curious about your opinion on this.