Problems of Modern Anti-Racism and Critical Race Theory
First of all, few understand how or why this movement even arose. Almost all Left-liberals think the early anti-racism movement of MLK and even post-Hajj Malcolm X is worthy and even exemplary. White nationalists despise this movement. There’s a clash right there.
Anyway, modern antiracism has gone far beyond Rosa Parks and Malcolm. Instead of Rosa Parks, the modern antiracist heroes are nothing but dirty criminals George Floyd and Trayvon Martin. They’re literally the worst people on Earth. That’s absolutely disgusting, but it makes sense.
Because Blacks commit such an extreme amount of crime, it’s inevitable that antiracist Black heroes would extend to the criminals after the initial injustices were rectified. And the extreme Black crime rate leads modern antiracists with no alternative but to oppose police, jails, prisons, judges, prosecutorsm and the justice system itself as a civil rights violation of Blacks. Of course they want to abolish the police and prisons. How else to get “justice” for Blacks? That’s the only way to do it!
Further, modern antiracists have boxed themselves and society into a cage. By insisting that all racial discrepancies are caused by White racism against non-Whites, they open themselves up to all sorts of fallacies:
What about East Indians, Asians, and Jews? Haven’t they suffered just a bit or perhaps much more than Blacks? Why is their response to horrific White racism to succeed beyond Whites while the Black reaction seems to be to fail?
The arguments are circular and non-falsifiable. A circular argument goes round and round and doesn’t say anything: How do we know the Earth is round? Because it’s shaped like a ball. How do we know the Earth is shaped like a ball? Because it’s round.
Modern antiracism arguments that racism is behind all racial disparities are similar.
How do we know that Blacks commit a lot of crime? Because there is racism against them. How do we know there is racism against Blacks? Because Blacks commit a lot of crime.
These arguments are like dogs chasing their tails in living rooms. And like the dog in your house, the arguments never go anywhere either.
The arguments that “racism causes all disparities” or “if there are disparities, that proves racism exists” are not falsifiable. There’s no way to prove them wrong. No matter how you slice the cake, it always tastes great. Arguments have to have some way to prove them wrong or else they are garbage. It’s not so much that these arguments are wrong, but it’s more that there’s no way to prove that it is either right or wrong. It’s like debating how many angels can stand on a pin.
The problem with CRT is not that it is not true. We can’t tell if it’s true or not true, so that’s not even a question. CRT is such bad theory that it’s not even wrong!
The genesis of modern antiracism, which all takes the form of Critical Race Theory, is via Black legal scholar Derrick Bell. Bell looked around and noticed that Blacks had achieved more or less legal equality. Yet that hadn’t seem to fix the problems of Black people. Huge disparities remained. Since these must obviously be caused by racism, clearly massive racism still existed despite the laws.
Then he looked around and noted that overt, nasty, ugly, in your face racism had similarly declined to the point where it was hard to find an obvious example of it in day to day life anymore. The use of racial slurs fell off the charts. Whatever was in their heads, most Whites were decent enough to Blacks. This sort of racism has continued to decline every year since the 1970’s, which makes the continuing disparities even more puzzling.
Bell’s argument was simple. If only racism could cause the disparities and de jure racism had collapsed and even in your face everyday racism had fallen off the chart or at least gone underground, what explained the discrepancies? Since the argument holds unscientifically that these disparities can only be caused by racism, the absence of legal and everyday racism poses a puzzle.
Clearly Blacks still faced massive racism (their problems proved that this was so), but how can we explain this if visible racism is so diminished?
Bell had a simple explanation. Since clearly Blacks continued to experience horrible racism (because of the disparities), if we couldn’t see it, there could be only one conclusion: Racism had somehow gone invisible and it was now in a form known as structural or institutional racism which could not be measured or studied.
If we can’t see or study something or even prove it’s there somehow with equations, there’s no point discussing it. Once again, antiracists have constructed a tautological and non-falsifiable argument impervious to reason or argument. No matter what, it’s always correct.
Most of society believes this nonsense, and this boxes us in.
Blacks can’t do math? Obviously math is racist. Quit teaching it.
Blacks do poorly on tests and in school? Obviously tests and grades are racist. Throw them both out.
And because meritocracy ends up with huge disparities itself between Blacks and Whites, clearly the idea of meritocracy itself is racist and must be tossed out. That means we can’t hire, promote, admit to universities, or pass in school anyone over anyone else. Forrest Gump is as qualified as Einstein. In this way we arrive at a society that promotes failure over success and hires, admits, and promotes the failed over the successful.
Everyone from the most successful to the worst failure gets the same grade as even the process of figuring out if one human is better than another at anything is racist. It’s clear that this way forward is doomed to fail in the worst way. To see what happens when incompetents are hired for important jobs and placed in charge of making essential decisions, take a look at Africa, where such is the norm. Those are not just failed states. That’s an entire failed continent.
Although the idea of an upside down meritocracy where failure always bests success seems insane, this is the only possible outcome of our present Critical Race Theory view of race. CRT spells the doom of nation, society, culture, and civilization itself. Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for here.
The Alt Left and Race Realism
Although the Alt Left masses themselves itself have officially renounced race realism, I continue to promote a Liberal or Left Race Realist project, as quixotic as it sounds.
It’s as clear as air to me that race is a real thing beyond mere obvious appearances. The behavior of Caucasian, Asian, Black, and Amerindian babies differ dramatically in ways that prefigure the personalities of the adults. I can’t see how that can possibly be due to culture.
The famous “candy bar” tests in the Southern US and Caribbean showed that Black and White children differ on impulsiveness and ability to delay gratification. There’s no way that something that basic was caused by culture. Granted, Black adults can learn to delay gratification when they become adults, but the results on even that question are not particularly encouraging. Witness the Vietnam War style dead and wounded counts inflicted by the Black armies of the night in a mere wink of a weekend in a large city like Chicago.
And even if Blacks do learn to become less impulsive as they age into adulthood, it’s clear that the basic Black personality comes into the world marked with a tendency towards impulsiveness. Sure, it can be curbed, but in order to do that a Black person has to go beyond their basic nature. Obviously this can be done too, but a lot of people are not good at it and tend to slide back towards their basic tendencies if they don’t watch themselves closely enough.
Anyway, if you plug “impulsive” and “poor ability to delay gratification” into the statistics on Black Americans, so many puzzling differences between them and Whites on all sorts of variables become lit up with the bright light of epiphany. The penny drops and we can see clearly now that the rain are gone.
Even more importantly, the debate about race realism is seriously off-base out of the starting gate. The horses are already tripping and we’ve barely started to run. The debate gets lost into a shout-fest about whether differential Black outcomes, which sadly are lower on a lot of good things and higher on a lot of bad things than Whites, are due to culture or genes or both or something in the air.
I point out that it doesn’t matter why Blacks or any other race act the way that they do. If you live in Chicago, does it matter that Blacks shoot up the city every weekend due to their SNP’s or due to their upbringing? What difference does it make? You’re dodging bullets one way or the other.
Instead, a race realism debate should start out on a much more innocent, basic, and hardly controversial basis: that the major races differ phenotypically in most of time and space. A phenotype is simply what results when the genotype (genes) interacts with the environment. The gene + environment = phenotype is the basic model for most human behavior and many human diseases. That the races differ phenotypically is not up for grabs at all. Pull out any chart on racial statistics and look around. The races act different! Duh.
The problem is that we can’t even admit this basic scientific fact on our benighted society. You can’t say, “Blacks commit much more crime than Whites” or “Blacks are less intelligent than Whites.” But these are hard, solid scientific facts that are completely uncontroversial in criminology and psychology.
The intelligence differentials are proven by IQ tests. The debate about whether intelligence exists, whether it can be measured, and how well IQ tests predict intelligence ended decades ago in the journals. Even the hard-line environmentalists have caved in on these issues. But it takes forever for science to make it from the journals and halls of academe to the popular press, and in everyday society, we are still pitching arguments that were trashed decades ago by the experts who study them.
Further, Blacks are behind in school achievement and have lower rates of high school graduation, college admission, graduation, and all sorts of other obvious markers for intelligence, which proves that the IQ tests are indeed measuring intelligence.
Try to state the obvious fact, “The Black race is on average less intelligent than the White race” in our society. You’ll be cancelled in the blink of an eye. According to the doctrine of “pure” race realism, which merely suggests that the races behave differently in different places in time and space, the only possible reasons for lower Black intelligence, higher crime, lower scores on many positive things and higher values on many negative things are either genes or culture. We can rule out racism. And by culture we mean the culture that they have created for themselves, possibly via their genes. So the culture argument goes circular very quickly.
We know racism is not at fault because Blacks have similar statistics in places that are almost all-Black where no anti-Black racism can be seen anywhere on the horizon. In fact, in these places, Blacks have even lower intelligence and higher crime and pathologies than they do in the US.
A Race Realism Critique: Race Realism Doesn’t Go Far Enough Towards Bettering Our Race Problems
White nationalists, including Brandon Adamson, have been unimpressed by my project, seeing it as too little, too late, and at any rate of little help to Whites. I beg to differ. A society in which the basic minimal premises of race realism – the races behave differently, and it’s not due to racism – would conceivably result in a dramatically different America. One with less self-flagellation and verbal lynching of Whites, with less White guilt and blame, and with fewer declarations of unwinnable wars to close racial gaps, etc.
The Societal Benefits of Adopting a Basic Race Realist View of Race
According to the cause and effect so favored by modern anti-racism, it stands to reason that the racism of US White society has dramatically increased Black intelligence and improved their behavior. I don’t believe that either, but the fact that Blacks act the same or usually worse when they are subject to no racism at all seems to rule out racism as a cause of lower intelligence and behavioral pathologies. Hey, they want to play cause and effect, right?
Yet if this is true, it lifts a weight off of our shoulders.
No more frantically beating our heads into our desks over the achievement gap. No more frantic efforts to close a gap that probably cannot be closed. No more waging dubious battles against unseen and possibly nonexistent entities like systemic racism. No more dumbing down curricula because school itself is racist because Blacks don’t do as well in it. No more admitting less qualified students over the more qualified. No more handing out graduation degrees barely useful for lining bird cages.
Likewise, it lifts a weighty package of guilt from the minds of Blacks. If Blacks perform less well in school, hey! It’s not their fault! Doesn’t that feel better already? They can quit beating themselves up over it. And the guilt is lifted from us Whites too. Blacks don’t do poorly in school because of we evil Whites and our devilish racism. Turns out our racist dark materials play no role in this at all. It’s not our fault that Blacks do less well in school! Stop beating yourself up, White man!
Once we acknowledge the bare minimum of race realism – that the races in the US behave differently for some unknown reason that is not caused by racism – now we may proceed onto the fraught terrain of the genes versus environment debate.
Granted, this is a minefield too because once society decides that Black statistics are caused by culture, we end up waging endless wars to improve Black culture, wars that typically boil down to charging at windmills with lances and other forms of folly. Indeed, Blacks behave much better and even show better school performance when we better their culture, but the gaps remain and may sadly be insurmountable.
When we acknowledge that Blacks are less intelligent, the urgency of closing the achievement gap fades. If they really are less smart, then the achievement gap is a normal product of such. Same with high school and university graduation rates, university admissions, etc. A less intelligent race would obviously drop out of high school and college more and be admitted to universities less often. So many foggy things become crystal clear.
At any rate, a society that acknowledges minimal race realism should be good for Whites. Once we acknowledge intelligence is a thing, we can start choosing better immigrants for our country. If the average US IQ is 98, I would argue that US immigrants should have a minimum 98 IQ. There’s hardly anything more ridiculous than mass importation of low IQ immigrants resulting in lower national IQ, but this is the project we have signed on to.
I’ve long said that it doesn’t matter much where an immigrant comes from if they are chosen well. Setting a 98 IQ for Black and Hispanic immigrants should reduce a lot of the crime problem we have from poorly controlled immigration. We can even take the best and the brightest from Africa. I have no objection to a Kenyan with a Master’s Degree wanting to call this land his home, and he and his offspring are unlikely to cause problems.
At the moment, our immigration project seems to to import vast numbers of low IQ, poorly educated workers and peasants from the 3rd World. I am baffled at why such folks, useful for little more than the most manual of labor, benefit our advanced industrial nation. Furthermore, this cohort is likely to produce a lot of school failure, crime, gangs, and other social pathologies. We are mass importing crime-prone populations from the 3rd World. It’s little surprise when their proclivities bear fruit in their behaviors.
A race realist society could look askance at affirmative action and other nonsense where less qualified people are promoted over more qualified, something that barely makes sense in most possible universes. In fact, it seems to be either cultural self-flagellation, masochism, or even a death wish on our part. It’s a project that is deliberately designed specifically to fail. Any rational person would scoff at such perversity, yet we are no longer a rational society.
Even the Genetic View of Race Is Not as Pessimistic and Doomed about Race As Everyone Thinks (or As Conservatives Hope)
On the other hand, the genetic explanation is not so doomed as liberals think. We are heading into the era of out and out gene editing. If we can’t create a better Black citizen by social engineering, perhaps we can create one in a test tube.
Once elevated Black levels of testosterone combined with a 2X higher psychopathy score become acknowledged (for these are obvious facts undisputed by science), extremely high rates of Black crime and other pathologies come into clear focus.
Further, once we acknowledge that the races are biologically and behaviorally different (and the reason is irrelevant), we can do one more important thing – we can start tailoring interventions specifically for certain races.
If Blacks have high testosterone, perhaps a pill can lower it. Elevated psychopathy levels may also be treated with a pill of some sort. Of course Black people would have to volunteer to take these pills, but once we point out that Black violence and behavioral pathology damages the perpetrator in addition to his victims, perhaps some Blacks will tire of antisocial behavior ruining their lives and sign up for a pill that keeps them out of jail.
There are other interventions besides medication. There are all sorts of psychological and sociological therapies for all manner of behavioral pathologies, including those that put you behind bars. Once we realize that the different races bring a different phenotypic dish to the plate, we can start tailoring interventions by race. Perhaps therapies that work well on Whites won’t work on Blacks. Perhaps Blacks will need interventions specifically designed to work with their phenotypical material.
Problems of White Nationalism
One form of White advocacy in the face of the coming trials of Whites in America is a movement called White nationalism which advocates a separate White ethnic state in the US. There are many problems with this proposal from the point of view of the Alt Left. First of all, we are a left-liberal movement, and people in that sphere are positively allergic to anything that even remotely smacks of racism.
And White nationalism is not just racist in the fake use of racism that the Cultural Left uses in which 80% of those accused of bigotry are not guilty of such. White nationalism is the real deal, hardcore, ugly, nasty, out and out blatant racism against non-Whites. At least that’s how it appears to everyone on the Left, including those on the Alt Left, as we are after all Left at the end of the day.
White nationalism will never go over with any liberal to Left race realists. It’s too toxic. It’s true that Adamson did start a “left wing of the Alt Right” wing of the Alt Left and that this is one of the original wings, but nevertheless, the Alt Left masses completely rejected this as a sort of “left-wing fascism,” which is probably not a bad way to describe it. Adamson distances himself from the Alt Left now and refers to himself as Dissident Right.
The purpose of the Alt Left is to convince the liberal-Left that race realism is a viable, proper, and decent philosophy. We can’t do that if it’s associated with real ugly racism.
In addition, White nationalism is a White Supremacist movement. That’s the whole purpose of it. They obfuscate this a lot, but face facts: if White nationalists did not consider themselves a superior race (White Supremacism) there would be no desire to “save the race” and promote their separate state, which is after all designed to save the race. Saving the White race or saving any race is ridiculous to me and probably to everyone on the liberal-Left. Races have been changing all down through time.
You have only to go to Silicon Valley to see that a highly diverse multiracial class of individuals can do amazing things. Even if Whites mix with other races, assortative mating will be the norm, with most higher IQ Whites mating with higher IQ non-Whites. In particular, a mixed White-Asian race seems to me to be an upgrade from the present White race as I consider Asians to be superior to Whites. Hence an Asian-White mixed race would simply improve the White stock. What’s wrong with that?
There is also a tendency on the Alt Left towards the view of the British take of things: “Oh well, I suppose we will muddle through this” – towards the “extinction of the White race.” Anyway, pure races have been going “extinct” all down through human history, and we are all still here and thriving. It’s a tempest in a teapot. When it comes to White genocide and White extinction, as Stein said about Oakland, there’s no there there.
White nationalists think that the White race is so superior to any other race that the end of the White race will mean devastation and decline for humanity. This is the down and dirty truth about White nationalism that none of them will admit. I’m not buying it and in particular, I’m not buying that we are superior to Asians.
Another problem with White nationalism is their idea of nation and state. Usually states have been carved up colonially out of many different nations or since the Peace of Hapsburg anyway in 1848, into nation-states made up of discrete groups of people that shared an ethnic heritage, language, religion, culture, and long history.
Obviously the nation-building efforts of nation-states caused all manner of problems, mostly that all of the non-members of the titular ethnicity were ordered to become hyphenated members of the main ethnic group. Or perhaps not even hyphenated. Nation-states have historically been allergic to the idea of minorities within their borders.
White nationalism involves neither a carve-up of colonial lands and arbitrary lines on a map nor a nation-state in the traditional sense. I am sorry, but “American” is not an ethnicity, and “Whites” are not a nation at least in the Leninist sense, which is the one I use. People that are not part of a nation generally have no right to a state.
More particularly, no ethnically race-based state has ever been tried anywhere except maybe in the Americas with Jim Crow laws and in South Africa. Neither one worked very well, and the latter needed continuous tinkering because people just wouldn’t stop interbreeding, not that there wasn’t a lot of that under Jim Crow, but the fallacious one-drop rule was instituted in a poor effort to deal with human nature, that is, the tendency to breed outside of one’s race.
All race-based states or pseudo-states failed and they were known for massive injustices at the same time. That hardly seems like a model anyone on the Left would sign onto.
Most Whites laugh at the idea of a White state. I can’t imagine the non-Whites of the US going along with such an ultra-radical scenario either. It seems preposterous and unworkable.
Further, White nationalists are putting the cart before the horse. They are like athletes who are trying to master a 6 foot high jump when they can’t even get over the 2, 3, 4, and 5 foot bars. They remind me of the Communists in Afghanistan who wanted to bypass the socialist phase of Communism altogether and go straight to Communism. That didn’t work either.
How about first things first? All proper arguments and movements start from the bottom and work up. For God’s sake, we can’t even get Americans to believe that race is real, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, and Blacks have a very high crime rate. Stating any of these scientific truths will get your career wrecked. How bout we focus on the absolute basics first? Like getting Americans to even agree to those three basic concepts. Then we can talk about what comes next.
Further, the views of White nationalists are extreme. They oppose Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, the Housing Rights Act, and even the 14th Amendment! Many support the South in the Civil War and downplay the horrors of slavery.
Almost all say that Jim Crow and segregation were better than the present state of racial affairs. In fact, one of their main arguments is that we need to allow legal segregation under the dubious grounds of freedom of association. Americans want nothing to do with Jim Crow based segregation. They don’t want to overthrow the Civil Rights laws. They like the Brown decision. And of course they love the 14th Amendment.
Further, in America, we don’t go backwards and deny rights already granted, which is why the anti-abortion argument is un-American. Here we started with a basic set of rights which we have historically continually expanded upon, which is proper and even in accordance with the Left Hegelian view of the March of History. We don’t go backwards and take away rights already given. White nationalists are asking Americans to do something they don’t do.
Other White nationalist views are quite extreme. I regularly see comments on American Renaissance that would not be allowed in even the most un-PC White household. Most Whites have gone beyond that.
White nationalists oppose miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites. First of all, no one uses that word anymore, and uttering it enough to clear most any room full of Whites. They call it race-mixing, which is about as toxic. Only 9% of American Whites oppose miscegenation of Whites with non-Whites.
In 2008, I read that there that 15% of Whites said they would never vote for a Black president. This was considered to be a starting base for White nationalism. The problem is that all views like this – support for segregation and dismantling civil rights, opposition to race-mixing and miscegenation, refusal to vote for a Black for president – are declining. The number of Whites thinking this way probably declines every year for decades now.
In this sense, White nationalists are fighting a war against Time itself. They are like a dog chasing after the runaway train of History. As Abe Lincoln said when he saw a dog doing that, “What do you think that dog will do if he catches up with that train?” But it’s worse than that. For White Nationalists, the train will forever be out of reach.