Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Realist's avatar

Thanks for a logical, well-written article about a subject fraught with social stigma.

Expand full comment
The Futurist Right's avatar

Non-racism as total amorality:

Let's say that you live in a village inhabited by a family of moral mutants whose members lack the natural familial instinct to favor kin. This happens within the family as well, so children don't favor their own brothers for example over third cousins. Somehow this works out splendidly; roles and prestige in the village are assigned based on competence and objective moral behavior instead of being distorted by strength of familial ties.

Then one day a new family moves in. The average member of that family is far far less competent than the average member of your family. If familism/ie racism (5) is bad, as Bo Winegard states then you are still obligated to judge them by their individual capacities and not the group they belong to.

Wait a second this is insane! You are a mutant, they are not. Even kind and competent members of the other group still lack the mutation that made you capable of dismissing familial ties. To persist in this family neutral policy in the presence of a family without the mutation; somehow achieves a level of amorality (if not anti-morality) so complete, no one ever thought to make rules about it. What would that rule even look like?

* Don't hurt those who would help you to help those that would hurt you hurt those who would help you!

Modern Western Europeans are moral mutants. They are the result of specific eugenic interventions, a legal ban on cousin marriage and the dispersal of extended families over a 1000 year period. No capacity for individualism can be expected of most other racial groups.

Expand full comment
30 more comments...

No posts