May 10, 2022 • 1HR 31M

Marooned in the Deepest Darkness of the Ultimate Nightmare Abyss

A Difficult Conversation about Race

Open in playerListen on);

Appears in this episode

Zero HP Lovecraft
In which I attempt to speak
Episode details

Part 1

It’s time for a difficult conversation about race in America. We used to hear this a lot

It was a buzzphrase of the late Obama era, and of the early trump years. Y’all ain’t ready for that conversation. You remember this

I think this conversation has come and gone. I think we had it at gunpoint, in 2020, in the summer of George

But that never was a conversation, was it? It was only ever a lecture, a kind of nagging, a kind of scolding, based on no reality at all, only on hysterical — and predominantly female — delusions. 

The other side of the conversation, our side, the white man’s side, that side never gets published or broadcast anywhere in so called “respectable” outlets

Truth is, that half of the conversation is illegal. That conversation will get you fired. We live in country which is systematically racist against black people but also black people have a sacred name that if any white person says it even once, he gets fired and black people have a license to beat him.

That’s not written into the law, it’s not de jure, but it is de facto lèse-majesté, a rule against insulting the king.

And this is one of the many pitfalls of the conversation about race. And I think there is no value in trying to have this conversation with your friends or your coworkers or even your family, unless you know they are already sympathetic.

The way we win isn’t by some grassroots evangelical mission to the man on the street. We accomplish nothing by sending racist witnesses door to door with a copy of the bell curve. 

The way we win this argument is by broadcasting these truths, with authority and power, from the biggest megaphones we can get hold of. That’s the only way people recognize truth in the mass media regime.

And the truth is, the first time they hear it, they will resist. Or get angry. Or deny it. But then one day they see something in their own lives that they can’t make sense of any other way.

So that’s when they find themselves — and honestly it’s a very painful moment, for most people — because they think it’s evil to be racially aware, so we have to be sensitive to the intellectual — and spiritual — journey that each individual person takes when they come to us.

Debating is fruitless. No one is ever convinced by watching debates. When you watch a debate between two people, you always walk away convinced that your champion won, and the other team lost. 

It galvanizes your enemies against you, it doesn’t win people over.

You’re not going to have some Ben Shapiro moment where you destroy the libs with FACTS and LAWGIC. That’s not the goal.

The goal is a kind of seduction, it’s to tell a story, a story that most people won’t want to hear, but which is darkly appealing, and then let them come to you

NPC Linear Dialog

And the beautiful thing about this process of seduction is that it’s not a secret. In fact it may be more successful if we are open about it, if we are audacious

So I will give you an overview of the dialog tree of every conversation you’ll ever have about race. These talking points are predictable, entrenched, and almost automatic

The reason I will explain this is that it’s a conversation many people have within themselves, when they wrestle with these topics

It’s quite remarkable to me, in fact, because I don’t think this is something anyone teaches to anyone else. 

It seems to be an emergent pattern in our collective consciousness, an accidental byproduct of our propaganda machine.

If you ever talk to a shitlib about race, they will say the following five things, probably in this exact order. 

1: Race isn’t real. 

2: OK even if it is real, so what?

3: Why do you know all this racist pseudoscience? Don’t you know that’s been debunked? 

4: What kind of pathetic person derives their self worth from these narratives of racial superiority?

5: You’re a racist piece of shit.

Anger is the last step, because that’s the main emotion you feel when you’re in a state of cognitive dissonance. If you think about race and you get to the end of the conversation, then you start at the beginning again next time

Because if you have this conversation internally, or some version of it, really you are arguing with an internalized version of society itself, one which you have absorbed and taken upon yourself

And that image is something that controls you, not always in a bad way, but always in a way that will cause you to align with the herd

This is the conversation you’ll have every time, it’s as linear as any old video game. After level five the conversation is over. 

We will address each of these claims in turn, beginning with the idea that race exists only as a social construct. 

This is a ludicrous statement, an insane lie so brazen and so blatant that it can be hard to know where to begin. 

We should not have to waste our time with this bullshit, but it is so pervasive and so common, it must be our first step. 

Whiteness, they will say, is a performance, it’s a culture but not a biological reality, almost as if it’s an evil spirit that is manifest in certain people but which has no correlation to reality except in so far as we need to completely destroy it.

It is ironic that those who rule over us pretend to be the party of science. They are not scientific, not in the least. Race exists as a biological phenomenon, as a chemical phenomenon, as a physical phenomenon, it is much more than words and ideology.

But then even if it’s real, so what? In the second part of the conversation we must establish the precise contours of some key differences. 

If our hypothetical interlocutor ever admits race is real, the next step is to claim that it doesn’t matter. That there are no possible conclusions to be drawn from this fact. 

Next they will accuse you of caring too much about the topic. Why do you know this? They will say you have evil motives.

They will say that you are personally so deficient that you rely upon notions of racial supremacy or group identity in order to feel better about yourself. They will attack your self esteem. “why do you want to feel better than other people?”

“it’s sad to have to derive your self worth from things that other people have done.” 

You have to be mentally strong and sure of yourself to withstand all this. Many people will crumble under the social pressure of the mainstream, because it’s very taxing to be the object of hatred

Many people are too humble and they will fall into confusion and introspection even at the shallowest accusations of selfishness, hatred, or mediocrity

Having any unsanctioned knowledge about race is viewed as suspicious, because none of this is taught in school, none of it is talked about on TV, and if it ever comes up in an academic or political setting, you are required to condemn it, to say that these are “outdated” or “antiquated” ideas which have been “debunked.”

So we must be very sure of our understanding.

We don’t want to look down on people. We don’t need racial narratives to feel superior. But in America, in fact, every race except whites is encouraged to partake of racial pride.

We are told that whites are uniquely evil. That it’s appropriate for blacks and asians and indians and hispanics to feel racial pride, but not whites, because whites are guilty for slavery and so on. 

We are supposed to pretend that conquest and imperialism are unique to whites, when in fact people of every race have engaged in these things. 

Whites are demonized for it, not because we have done it, but because we have been the best at it, because our empires have covered more of the world than any other race, because we have conquered asia, africa, america, and australia. Why shouldn’t we take pride in that?

I am proud of my brother, of my father, of my grandfather, of my cousin, and my uncle. A race is an extended family —  Why shouldn’t I feel proud of my race? The greatest and most exceptional members of a race are drawn up from the mass of it.

I am proud to be part of that heritage from which the greatest writers, philosophers, scientists, and explorers have sprung. I’m proud to be part of that fundament.

On the topic of slavery, most of us know that blacks sold their own co-ethnics to white slavers in Africa. Slavery today is still very much alive and praticed in Africa and Asia, by arabs and africans, with not a european man in sight. But we’re supposed to believe that whites bear all of the guilt for this, too.

Whites are the most accepting of other races, the least racially prejudiced, and this is why they put up with these kinds of racial abuses. 

Tell a white man that whites are the worst race, and see how he reacts. Then tell a black man that blacks are the worst race. Which one of these activities will get you punched in the face?

The finding that whites are the least racially prejudiced is robust in social science. When people of different races are surveyed, whites have better things to say about blacks and mexicans and Asians than any of those races have to say about them — or about each other!

When you point out that whites have no special monopoly on slavery or conquest, that’s called “whataboutism” — they will tell you that other races practicing slavery does not excuse whites, does not alleviate their guilt. That your sins do not forgive my sins. 

And we agree: the fact that whites have owned slaves does not excuse africans for owning slaves! Moreover and if we take a historical perspective, whites are uniquely benevolent — albeit naive and idealistic — when it comes to the institution of slavery, and we also uniquely proficient at war.

But we lower ourselves by falling into this frame of who did what, because if we say “you did it too” we have tacitly accepted the idea that whites have something to atone for —

as if being descended from warriors and kings somehow places a debt or a burden upon us. 

In fact it’s even worse than that; if we apologize for the victories of our co-ethnics, we become spiritually castrated; are we supposed to believe it’s wicked to win a war, bad to explore new territories, evil to fight for our own interests?

Conquest is glorious! Exploration is courageous! The wicked thing would be to act against our own interests; to fight for ourselves is noble

In truth there may be some people who are so ineffective at managing their own affairs that trusting them with autonomy becomes a cruelty. 

That’s all slavery is, it’s when one person is wholly subordinate to another. We accept it as altruistic, for example, in the case of a man who cares for his brother with Down’s syndrome. A person with Down’s syndrome is better off as a slave, in the most literal sense, and few would dispute this.

And there are many people who are not retarded in the clinical sense who nevertheless would benefit from less autonomy. Government programs, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, all of it, it’s all slavery, it’s just distributed slavery, headless slavery, slavery to a committee rather than an individual. 

If you are dependent upon the state, you are not a free person. If you cannot fully care for yourself, you are a slave. 

The only difference between dependency and slavery is that one word is polite and one is rude. If someone else pays for you to exist, they own you. The greater the dependency, the lesser the freedom.

And what we see is that most people don’t even mind being slaves in this sense, many of them welcome it, because autonomy is more of a burden than a blessing, and the average person doesn’t really want it, but he thinks he does.

You give up some freedom to exist in a community, to exist in a society. You give up much more when you say “society ought to provide for me.” 

And the cries we see all the time, especially from women, but also, quite tellingly I think, by so many blacks, when they demand more government programs

— this is such a common cry it’s become a cliche — mo’ money fo’ dem programs — what they are calling out for is a master! They want a master! They want to be slaves. 

And I think the really crazy thing is that we condemn them for it, when really we should recognize that many — maybe even the majority — of people need to exist in a hierarchy, need someone above them, to tell them where they fit in the world.

We think “know your place” is some kind of a derogatory remark, but really it’s very good to know your place, to know that you have a place, to know where you stand in relation to the world.

The impetus to INVENT your place in the world is a noble calling but it’s also a perilous one. And in a way it’s tyrannical to force it on everyone, no matter how ill-suited they may be to the task.

But we will move on, for now, because I have promised you racist pseudoscience.


Part 2


Principal component analysis

The study of genetics has vindicated all of our supposedly naive intuitions about race.

In a way it’s absurd that we must go to these lengths to establish what any fool can see with his own eyes. 

Race is real, and it’s so much deeper than skin color. For any two races there may be hundreds of morphological differences — pigment is only the most obvious.

Different races have different textures of hair, different bone structures, different palates and tongues, which are one factor that shapes the languages of different peoples. Blacks may have different blood cells, Asians have different consistency to their earwax; and this is the one that is really going to kill you:

there are differences in the ways our brains develop and in our neurochemistry that are highly determined by our race. Evolution doesn’t stop at the neck.


But again do you need science to tell you different races think differently? Look at some photos of African or Indian albinos. They all have white skin; do they look ethnically white to you? Of course not, because race is so much more than skin deep — it’s bone deep and brain deep and blood deep.

You can send skin cells from the inside of your cheek to 23&me and get back a detailed breakdown of where your DNA comes from. That should tell you everything you need to deduce that race is not a social construct or an illusion of melanin.

And now the next argument you’ll hear is that what 23&me actually shows is that there is no white race, there’s only Germans and English and Swedes and so on. But this entire line of thinking is bullshit, too. The existence of high resolution lineage doesn’t mean the low resolution picture is false. 

Now let’s talk about how we build the high resolution picture. It hinges on a mathematical technique called principal component analysis, which is a method for reducing a data set of high dimension to a data set of low dimension. For those without a background in linear algebra, it is a way of computing categories based on distance.

If we imagine your dna as a vector, then it is a point in a very high dimensional space. We can chart the DNA of many different people in this space, and it begins to look like a scatter plot. Probably you remember doing something like this in school

What we can then do is draw new vectors through the data and try to find the line of best fit. In a very disparate set of points, one line won’t fit very well. So then we compute a second line of best fit, with the added constraint that it should also be as different from the first line as we can possibly make it.

Ideally these vectors would be what we call orthogonal, which means that neither can be computed as a linear combination of the other, which means that they point in different directions and that if you move in the direction of the first vector you haven’t moved in the direction of the second vector at all. 

If you’re moving east and you’re in a flat 2d plane, you are not moving north or south. North is orthogonal to East as long as we’re talking about Euclidean geometry. 

We can keep repeating this process and draw as many of these orthogonal lines of best fit as we want, and these are called the principal components. And what they do is, they provide us with a strictly numerical method of categorizing data.

The set of principal components is called a basis, and each vector in the basis is one category. And now we can measure how much any particular data point belongs to each category by expressing it as a linear combination of basis vectors.

In other words, we can measure the degree to which a person belongs in each category. You know for example that you share half your dna with each of your parents, and also half your DNA with each of your siblings, though not the same half, of course. 

If we ran a principal component analysis on just your family, and we chose a dimensionality of two, then your mother and your father would be the two principals and you and any siblings you have would be somewhere between them.

That’s all it is. It’s a bunch of people who are more genetically similar to each other than they are to people of another race. Now there’s a little asterisk attached to that, and it’s called Lewontin’s Fallacy, and we’ll get there in a moment.

So if what if we apply Principal Component Analysis to humans of different races. Can you guess what we find? 

It depends on what dimensionality we choose. If we choose to collapse the human genome into two categories, then it finds exactly two races, the Eurasid, and the Africanid. In other words, all the people of the world — anglos, italians, swedes, indians, han chinese, persians, so-called “native” americans, and even aboriginal australians are all in one category, and africans are in the other. That’s how dissimilar we are.

If we add a third category, then eurasid splits into caucasid and asiatid. What we might call east asians are the third most genetically distinct group. As we go on down the line, amerindians split off of asiatid, and then africanids split into east and west, and on it goes. 

Prior to the late 20th century, all racial classification relied upon morphology, rather than genetics. At lower dimensionality, all the way up to eight, what we find is that the genetics of humans conform exactly to classical taxonomies of race. 

But using technology, using science — I fucking love science — it is possible to expand our study of racial taxonomy much higher, into the hundreds if we so desire. We can become hyper-racist, we can become experts, connoisseurs of racism

High-quality racism is extraordinarily hard work. You have to have working recall of at minimum eight or nine thousand distinct races, living and extinct, and run extensive simulations just to model the disgusting attributes of the most easily conceivable 2- & 3-way crosses.

The modern, genetic, scientific understanding of race is consanguineous with older approaches which were based purely on external observations. Race is real. It’s not an outdated notion, it’s an ancient notion that has been totally upheld by cutting edge science and mathematics. 

So maybe this will convince you that our concept of race is grounded in something much deeper than skin color and social construction. And in many ways the reality of race is a sideshow to the bigger question, which is what to do about it. 

But there is another line of argument or reasoning that can be used to reject modern genetic science. It’s very hard to claim that genetic science is wrong, but it’s relatively easy to claim that even the concept of categories is flawed

Most people who do this are guilty of special pleading, but let’s humor them. The claim is that, for example, many people exist who are of mixed race. If a black and a white person have a child together, what race is the child? There is of course a historical answer to this. 

The fallback argument for “race isn’t real” is that there are cases which straddle the categories, people who cannot be cleanly categorized as one race or another. We can imagine a series of mixed race people who occupy a range of admixture such that if you had them all stand in a line from whitest to blackest, it would be impossible to determine where exactly one race ended and another began. 

In the real world if we look at border regions where different ethnic groups live in close proximity, we do see enough cross-breeding that these kinds of gradients exist. If we take a few steps back, the actual question is: does the existence of continuity invalidate the possibility of discretization?

We can ask this question in any domain, and the answer is always no. Every category imaginable has edge cases, but we are still able to discern useful and meaningful distinctions between them. 

In the visible spectrum, red light has a wavelength of 650 nanometers, yellow light, 580 nanometers, and orange light, 600 nanometers. But we know that light can exist at any wavelength between these seemingly arbitrary markers. Does the possibility of orange mean that red and yellow don’t exist?

We can easily become mired in a pedantic and nuanced and pointless conversation here about the nature of existence. Our hypothetical race sophist will of course claim that in fact these wavelengths are arbitrary and socially constructed also, but if you stab them with a knife, their blood won’t be orange or purple. Then again lizards bleed green…

I’m not being flippant about this. Practical and functional considerations ultimately win out over ivory tower self-sucking. We can come up with borderline cases for any category but in any situation where we need to take effective actions in our environment, we have no choice but to make judgements using the cognitive tools at our disposal. 

We can be aware that those tools have limitations without swearing off tool use altogether.

A category is a measure of similarity between disparate things. A good definition of a category clarifies our understanding, because it lets us group similar things together and reason about them. Edge cases don’t invalidate the category, and often they refine it.

Now, we can throw this into even sharper relief when we consider that there are many different species of animals in nature which we recognize as distinct. And so far as I know, even the most brazen anti-racialist would not claim that the concept of “species” is an arbitrary distinction. That for example an eagle is the same species as a sparrow. 

But we can make the distinction more difficult when we look at species which are closer to each other: wolves and coyotes and domestic dogs are all quite similar. In fact they are so similar that they can interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. But we recognize a difference there, and we don’t even need genetic science to do it. The MORPHOLOGY of these animals is sufficient.

But when we actually look at the genetic data from different varieties of canids, we find that coyotes and north american gray wolves are MORE genetically similar to each other than a chinese person is to a sub-saharan african. And I think this is also true if we look at morphology. 

The fact is that if we applied the same scientific approaches that we use for categorizing other animals that we use for categorizing humans, then we would recognize that the different races of men are in fact different SPECIES,

There’s no scientific reason that we call humans races and animals species, it’s the intentional blurring of these topics which is the real socially constructed illusion that we ought to dispel. 

And this brings us to Lewontin’s fallacy, this is a famous and maybe counterintuitive thing, which many anti-racialists believe discredits the idea of using genetics to defend our instinctive racial categories. Lewontin said the genetic variance within a race on average exceeds the genetic variance between races. Moreover he said that race is a meaningless distinction because of this.

And the part about variance is true, but there are genetic markers which reliably and perfectly correlate with race, despite variance. The argument instantly falls apart when we transpose it to the domain of sex; there is more genetic variation amongst all women than there are between say a brother and sister, but we don’t claim on this basis that biological sex doesn’t exist. Even among the most recent insanities and abuses of gender ideology, no one would go that far. They will say your gender identity can be different to your “birth sex” — they don’t talk about genetics at all. 

These people wouldn’t refer to your “genetic sex” because, as with race, they will claim that the tiny minority of border cases — people born with congenital androgen insensitivity, chromosomal disorders, or birth defects of the genitalia — invalidate the concept of biological sex 

At its core, antiracialist and gender ideology have the same fallacy in common, though for strictly pragmatic reasons they arrive at opposite conclusions about the possibility of being transracial versus being transexual. I believe that these people are not biologically capable of being reasoned with. Draw your own conclusions about that.

Treating people like inferiors

OK but once again: so what? So race is real, what does that imply? Why do you care about this so much? I’ll answer that in the following segment, but first I want to talk about a related question, which is: does the reality of racial differences justify treating people differently, or like inferiors? 

but I am not going to answer that question as I have formulated it here, because it is a loaded question: it contains implicit moral assumptions which I believe are incorrect.

The first assumption is that to treat someone like an inferior is to treat them badly. The second assumption is that everyone is equal not just in terms of their spiritual worth but also in terms of their capacity for responsibility and autonomy. Both of these assumptions are flawed.

We do not treat our inferiors badly as a matter of course. There are many senses in which children are inferior to adults; they are smaller, weaker, credulous to the point of naïveté, so ignorant that it becomes a catastrophic liability. And yet we treat children better than we treat adults in most cases.

I was always taught to be gracious to people who were less fortunate than me, to be courteous even to people who I had an obvious advantage over. And I think you were probably taught this also. So to treat someone like an inferior often means to treat them very well.

So given this understanding, the answer is yes, there are many cases where biologically determined differences may justify treating people like inferiors, which is to say, with a sense of duty and obligation to care for them. And allowing people to have autonomy when they can’t handle it is a form of abuse, not only to them, but to everyone around them.

This is an anti-egalitarian doctrine. What I am telling you is that we need to be realistic about what we can expect from people and we need to treat them appropriately based on those expectations.

William Blake wrote that one law for the lion and the ox is oppression. Even most leftists understand this. They like to point out that a law which makes it illegal to sleep under bridges only affects the homeless, but it does nothing to govern the well off. In fact these are subtly different statements, and they have exactly contradictory implications, though they have a family resemblance. 

The point is that there can’t be a single universal set of rules that is equally fair to everyone, because everyone has different circumstances and the law ought to take that into account. So however much we are overestimating the homogeneity of our population, our laws are probably unfair in roughly the same measure. 

But so it is incumbent upon us, it is imperative, if we have any hope or any desire for justice, that we develop an accurate understanding of race and of racial differences. 

There can be no justice without truth, and there can be no truth without honesty, and honesty is often unpleasant.


Part 3


Perfidy of Science

I think I have reasonably established that biological race is an ontologically valid concept, and also a socially and scientifically useful concept. I linked to some references, which I invite you to verify. 

Of course, there will always be people who refuse to acknowledge such teachings. These people are easy to recognize;

they will demand to see your sources, as if they would read them in any case, and then they will, probably without even bothering to do a perfunctory google, tell you that the sources you are are citing have been discredited or debunked.

It’s pretty rare to even see a counter-source in such cases. Indeed one is not necessary; the language of “debunked” or “discredited” is neither a rational nor analytical statement. 

It is a statement of power, which is to say, it is a statement made in the language that power uses when it addresses itself to truth.

The sovereign is he who determines the null hypothesis. A majority of “reasonable” “decent” people will go along with any atrocity, no matter how heinous, if going along with it is the default option.

Generally, the person saying racial science is debunked does not hold any power himself; thus it is an appeal to authority. 

And authority, which is to say, scientific institutions, have declared that race isn’t real and that there are no meaningful distinctions or conclusions to be drawn from the study of racial differences, outside of certain very narrow medical applications, and even those tend to be looked on with suspicion.

We have many reasons to be suspicious of science, not as a practice of dispassionate investigation into the nature of the natural world, but as a human, all too human institution which is ultimately composed of people, paid for by governments and other bureaucratic bodies, all of whom are subject to politics and who have political agendas.

Everyone knows that if the tobacco industry funds a study on smoking, it’s going to find that tobacco doesn’t cause cancer. 

If Coca Cola pays for a study about sugar consumption they will find that it has a very weak effect on obesity, or none at all. No one, not one anywhere, has trouble reaching this conclusion, that having a financial stake in the outcome of a study can cause scientists to manipulate their findings.

Even the New York Times has published articles explaining this history. A nonprofit organization called the Sugar Research Foundation bribed harvard researchers. Nestle paid for research to obfuscate the link between sugar consumption and heart disease. 

Even if you’re like a die-hard Ray Peat fan and you think it’s important to eat a pint of ice cream every night before bed you have to admit that the incentive drove the outcome. I am sure none of my friends have trouble with this.

I don’t demand consistency of thought from anyone, it’s an impossible request, like asking you to lasso the moon, walk on water. We are men, not gods. 

But ask yourself, if you believe a study funded by a corporation is shaped by that corporations incentives, then why don’t you believe a study funded by the government is shaped by that government’s incentives?

Would you believe a study funded by the chinese government that says forcing uighurs to live in camps and intermarry with chinese makes them happier and increases their subjective well being? 

Would you believe a study funded by the north korean government that found that having a picture of Kim Jong Il in your house is associated with lower mortality across all causes? Well ok that’s a tricky one. A self-fulfilling prophecy maybe. But you have to admit it raises an eyebrow. 

There are many reasons for the US government or for academic institutions to demand race denialism. Some are financial but most are ideological. 

And this is another point of contention we have with the libs: in general they will argue that behind every supposedly ideological reason is a financial incentive. They may not believe this, but this is what they will say.

That people are immoral because of greed, that greed is the only sin which causes people to act against morality. Greed or, if you’re a man, an intrinsic desire to hurt women. Rape isn’t about sex, remember, it’s about power. People really think this.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that?

“Men aren’t horny they just want to hurt women.” This 75 IQ belief is brought to you by the same people who think ideology always boils down to money. 

As if no one, no where, has any other value or purpose than to amass gold and spend it on hideous postmodern anti-art. 

As if no one ever died or killed for GLORY. For HONOR. For LOVE. Anyone who says that shows how small his soul is.

Alright but enough stalling. I promised you a difficult conversation about race. We haven’t had it yet. We haven’t got to the difficult part. 

And the difficult part really is difficult, and we make light of it, and we joke about it, not only because it’s easier to joke but because sometimes, there are certain topics which are too sensitive NOT to joke about them. 

Racial differences are real, and the truth is there are only two ways to respond to this knowledge: the first way, the way we have chosen since the civil rights movement, is to kill each other over them. 

The other way, the good way, is to learn to laugh about them. We can joke about it or kill about it, that’s it, that’s the choice. I prefer to laugh about it, if that wasn’t clear.

But once we acknowledge that the races of men have real differences, then it is only natural to wonder about the nature of those differences.

And you all already know what some of those differences are. And I’m going to state them plainly. But first I’m going to head off one more objection to this line of thinking, which is to answer the question: why do you care? 

This is always the last resort of the anti-racist, if you best them with knowledge, they will say, “why do you care about this so much? Why do you know this? Do you really just need to feel superior to other people? Do you hate people of other races, is that why you know all this?”

These questions are asked in bad faith, but I will answer them in good faith, so that you know, so that you know for yourself.

Whites and Blacks. Different. Why do we care.

And the answer is we never wanted to care. We never wanted to learn about racial differences. The overwhelming majority of whites were quite happy with the ideology of colorblindness, despite its contradictions.

Those of us who learned about racial science did so because we were fed an absolutely bullshit story that all disparities between black and white were caused by our innate wickedness.

It was our original sin of white privilege, of systemic racism, an insidious type of racism that is so invisible, so pervasive, so total, that all white people, no matter what they do, are born with an irredeemable blood debt to all black people for eternity. 

Some may say I’m being hyperbolic. But be honest: is there any amount of reparations that would ever be enough, any amount of affirmative action, any world where white liberals and blacks say, ok, that’s enough, we’re square now?

The answer is no, we cannot imagine such a world. It isn’t even a theoretical possibility. The blood debt is eternal, if you accept its premises, which we don’t.

And the reason we don’t accept them is that we know a better story, a truer story, one which is entirely backed up by statistics and even by that cursed name, Science.

We care because there are multiple levels where the narrative of white guilt for black tragedy is wrong. It assumes that all people are equal, not just in terms of their moral worth, but in terms of their abilities and their proclivities, and that if one racial group outperforms another, that’s exclusively due to irrational prejudice.

The alternative story, the true story, hurts peoples feelings. It’s mean. It’s offensive.

and in the US especially we have been taught our whole lives that there is nothing, NOTHING more evil than “racism” — a word with two different meanings, depending on the audience and the context.

You know these two meanings, you know about the “motte and bailey” — that classic which Scott Alexander popularized, the motte with its mostly unobjectionable definition that most people agree is bad, and the bailey with its expansive definition that is used to attack. 

The bailey is that all racial disparities are due to invisible prejudice. The motte is that it’s generally an error to judge someone solely by their race when other information is available. 

I think most of you learned this in 2014, but I’m trying to ground you in the basics, just in case.

And note what I said, it’s an error to judge someone by their race when other information is available. This is how all heuristics and stereotypes work. 

The standard disclaimer slash mental-model is this: We know that men are taller than women. We know that not all men are taller than all women. 

But on average, men are taller. If we know nothing at all about two arbitrary people, except that one is a man, and one is a woman, then the safest bet is that the man is taller. That’s how statistical averages work.

So it’s not an error at all to appraise people using one or two superficial details about them, it’s only an error to keep hodling that opinion when you receive contrary information. 

But the antiracist epistemic model, really the leftist model in general, says that it’s not morally permissible to use information like sex or race to make predictions about someone. 

This demand is both impossible and insane, and it drives you insane, precisely because it’s impossible. 

It makes it so that every time you fail to do the impossible thing, you feel morally deficient, and then one way of coping with the guilt you feel over it is to double down, to try to atone for it.

But you can be free of this, if you just let go of the false moral premise.

One more analogy, from physics, that it is impossible to model the behavior of a single particle in thermodynamic system, but it is very possible, if we know the laws of thermodynamics, to model the behavior of the system of a whole, that is, the behavior of all the particles. 

Knowledge of racial differences is exactly like this. 

It’s very rare, especially in AmeriKWA, to meet anyone who is willing to openly and unapologetically claim to be a racist. 

As a result, most people have no idea how racists actually think, and they imagine that racism is a kind of blind prejudice, when in fact it can be a highly informed kind of prejudice, and a wholly justified one.

Knowing things about crime statistics and IQ research does not stop me or anyone else from being civil to, or cooperating with, or even esteeming highly a person of another race.

In fact as corny as the old “dems are the real racists” line is, there is a kernel of truth to it. Knowledge of, and ACK-knowledgement of racial differences is a better basis for coexistence than any program of egalitarianism or race denialism. 

But I would never tell you that dems are the real racists. Don’t let anyone tell you that. WE are the real racists, because we are the best racists

and if there is a future for America as America, it’s going to involve what Jungians call “integrating our shadow” — in some ways the woke are closer to this than the mainstream.

When they tell you that color blind racism is de facto white supremacy, they are correct, just not for the right reasons.

Now as a sort of tangent, but also something very relevant to the topic of American colorblind racialism, I want to play for you a clip from Bronze Age pervert, on the topic of American Hellenism, the idea of the cultural melting pot, which I think is very insightful.

(BAP on American Hellenism)

There are two very important differences that we see between blacks and whites, when we are speaking of groups. And again, any individual white may be quite stupid, and any individual black may be quite smart.

But on average we find a difference in IQ of about 16 points, one standard deviation. That’s the first difference. Much like with the reality of biological race, there are many common criticisms of IQ, which we will explore in a moment. 

But first, the second very important difference between blacks and whites is their tendency towards violence. One example is the meme statistic, which is released by the FBI most years, a breakdown of homicides by race. 

In 2020, blacks comprised 56.5% of known murder offenders, a per capita rate more than 8 times worse than that of the nonblack population (whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indigenous etc.) lumped together. 

As with IQ, there is are many popular ways of coping with this fact in order to dodge the possibility of racism, and we’ll get into those, too.

IQ-ish Question

IQ research is imperfect. There are many things that it does not measure. I can’t remember how he phrased it, but BAP once said that IQ is a measure of domestication. 

That the higher your IQ is, the more docile and compliant you become. I don’t think that’s quite the whole story, but even if it’s wrong, it’s wrong in an interesting way, at least.

What IQ does not measure, undoubtedly, is the strength of a man’s will, the FIRE in his belly, his tenacity, his courage, his valor. 

What it does measure is his ability to recognize and extrapolate patterns. There is of course much more to the human heart and soul than this. 

But IQ correlates strongly with income, correlates weakly with height, correlates a little more strongly with facial attractiveness, and on and on. That alone should tell you it measures something real.

As with studies about the biological reality of race, you will always hear that IQ is discredited or debunked. You will hear theories of “multiple intelligence” — many other things of this nature. 

IQ is not destiny. No one anywhere thinks that. But it’s highly predictive of some important things. It’s the most robust and replicable and scientific tool in the discipline of human metrics.

But people object to it, very strongly, even very smart people, in many cases, not because it’s so wrong in my opinion but because it’s fundamentally uncomfortable to assign an objective measure of intelligence. 

I’m very partial to the theories of Robin Hanson, who believes that humans instinctively prefer ambiguity about rank in social situations, because it gives us more room to maneuver politically.

Almost everyone likes to think of himself as smart, and often especially the people who tell you they aren’t very smart, they are putting one over on themselves, and trying to fool others too, by pretending it’s not important, or downplaying it. 

Most of the time when a man says “I’m an idiot,” he is telling you that he thinks he’s very smart indeed. 

And a lot of people, I’ll say especially people who are secular, atheist, not in the fedora sense but just in the default sense, in the sense that our culture’s default religious belief is a kind of atheism informed by christianity, really do believe that the most essential measure of worth is intelligence.

This especially when you don’t believe in a soul or a salvation. They like to say that Jesus was an egalitarian, that he said there is neither man or woman, slave nor free man in Christ.

But that’s the part they always leave out, isn’t it, IN CHRIST. Not on earth. On earth we’re all quite human, all too human. 

How can you believe in Christian equality without Christ? It’s nonsensical, it’s a perversion. You hear people say intelligent life has an intrinsically higher value.

“Intelligent life” — this is part of that secular perversion, that it can find no way to value life except intelligence. That’s why you can’t measure IQ. 

Because if you measure it, you’d find what everyone already knows, that some people just aren’t that bright, and then what?

For people who say IQ is imperfect and therefore useless, I like to do a little thought experiment: suppose that we had a measure which was perfect, which exactly and accurately captured all the capacities of a person, how smart they were, how strong, how moral. 

Would you be OK with that? With a perfect estimate of your worth, boiled down to a single number? That you could compare against everyone else and see how you ranked?

I claim that most anyone who isn’t OK with IQ will also not bite this bullet. Because that’s not their real objection, it’s not that IQ is imperfect, it’s a fundamental discomfort with quantifying human worth. 

It’s because there’s always someone better than you, at everything, and you know that, but it hurts, doesn’t it, to rub your face in it.

A positive self image is very valuable. IQ removes all that ambiguity, it takes away your room to maneuver, it takes away your room to self-deceive, it punctures certain valuable illusions you have about yourself. 

About your family, maybe. Or your friends. Or God forbid, your race.

And it’s a funny old thing, because even most people who know about this, a lot of the time, they are understandably very concerned with appearing racist, even to themselves.

So they make little bargains, bargains with themselves, bargains with the world. Northeast Asians have higher average IQ than Whites, that’s what the research says. As do ashkenazi jews. 

See, I’m not racist, they say. Nigerians are better runners. These kinds of things.  This isn’t about white supremacy.

And it’s not, it really isn’t. But what it means is that colorblind racism is always going to favor whites, in a sense, over blacks. 

At least if we think in terms of income or scientific accomplishment. That’s not fair, but it’s true. 

To some leftists, to many of them, even, this inherent, biological disparity, again not an individual disparity, there are smart blacks, and boy oh boy are there a lot of dumb whites, but this inherent group disparity, to some, justifies burning down the world and implementing permanent wealth transfers, communism, in order to try to make everyone the same.

That’s it, that’s the only answer leftists can come up with. But most of them have never wrestled with the difficult moral questions that inherent inequality raises. 

They are simpletons who only have one tool in their philosophical toolbox which they clumsily apply to all situations.

Most of them simply deny the obvious. They say it’s down to “discrimination” or “historic injustice.” Bullshit. The second richest racial demographic in the USA is Indians. The third is Taiwanese. 

Who is the first? Ah, haha, that is an exercise for the reader. How is it possible that these swarthy POCs have overcome the crushing oppression of systemic racism in America?

The answer is they have no good answer, that’s why they invented the word BIPOC, because “person of color” made the contradictions in their mental model too apparent. 

The leftists who are brave enough to face the truth about race always decide that it doesn’t change anything about their utopian vision and that if anything it just means they have to double down on their faith, believe even harder.

This is the response of a man who builds his life around a false faith.  

13 do 50

The other big difference between blacks and whites is violence. Blacks commit more homicides, more rapes, more violent assaults, more thefts. 

There are several common dodges here. The first is that in absolute numbers, whites commit more murders, and that’s because there are almost six times as many whites as blacks. 

But if we look at per capita, the number of murders the average black person commits, it’s much much higher. That’s what the 13 do 56 statistic means.

And if we really drill down even deeper, of course we notice that almost all of the homicides are committed by men, both white and black. 

So then there is this kind of interesting bit of sophistry that, by the logic of the argument, that establishes some kind of spiritual superiority of women over men. 

But as Camille Paglia said, there’s no female Mozart for the same reason there’s no female Jack the Ripper. But there’s also no Black Mozart, and there are many, many Black Jack the Rippers. 

So there is an argument here about variance, and capacity for excellence.

But this isn’t a talk about misogyny, this is a talk about racism. The real argument, the main argument, is that blacks do more violence because of poverty. That’s always their main deflection. 

Well you’d commit more crimes too if you were poor and struggling to feed your family. That’s what they say. This is understandable, but wrong. And we have lots of data from social science to show that it’s wrong.

Black neighborhoods have higher gun homicide rates than white neighborhoods of the same socioeconomic status level. ( 

They also tell you that poverty lowers IQ, and that blacks live in poverty and etc. 

But the famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption study found that being raised by white parents did not have any effect on the IQ gap. If we look at numbers published by the college board, we see that IQ gaps between whites and blacks persist at every income decile. 

Everywhere these numbers are published, you always see these disclaimers “what this shows is that we have to do more than just alleviate black poverty” — “there are many possible explanations but this or that environmental factor is the most likely.” 

They try to blame it on lead poisoning, on the legacy of slavery, increasingly they graps at ever more ephemeral possibilities, totally unfalsifiable, because the goal isn’t to know the truth, it’s to literally believe anything except that there are innate genetic differences between racial groups.

They’ll say IQ tests are culturally loaded, and point to old tests that used to ask questions about boating or something like this. But modern IQ tests contain no cultural baggage of any kind. 

They are entirely about shapes and lines and colors. Some dinky free test you take online tells you nothing. You need to look at professionally administrated tests and how they are structured. 

IQ denialists never even bother, they don’t care, they just find the first hit on google with the magic word “debunked” — and that’s good enough.

This isn’t a dishonest impulse, it’s actually in some ways a very moral impulse. But it’s also wrong. And believing a harmful lie for a good reason doesn’t make it any less harmful. In fact it compounds the harm. 

The harm, in all sincerity, to both white and black people. Because you can’t hope to make just laws, you can’t hope to make just decisions, about race, if you can’t start by being honest about it. 

Once again: there’s no justice without truth, there’s no truth without honesty. It’s not possible. We don’t believe these things out of malice or resentment. 

We believe them because they are true, and because we want to believe true things, not things which soothe our injured pride, as many liberals will accuse us of.

We circle round and round. I have focused on the racial differences between whites and blacks here because they are the most evident and the most relevant to our current political situation. 

Racial discourse has seen a bit of a lull and the current current thing is more concerned with homosexuality or feminism than with racism. 

But news cycles ebb and flow; one year they trot out race, the next, transexuality, and then the next, it will be back to race.

As we speak USA companies are busy implementing and responding to antiwhite racialist initiatives from the 2020 cycle of racial politics. 

They will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It’s important for us to establish our counternarrative, to support it as strongly as possible, and to be as truthful as possible in doing so.

Maybe you agree with me about all or most of the above. Maybe you don’t but for the sake of argument you concede the point: now what? What am I proposing? 

Because if all of this is true, then what that means is that a fair society isn’t fair. At least it’s not fair if you are concerned with the idea that disparities among racial groups are unfair. 

Disparate Impact

And of course, blacks, american blacks, and sub-saharan african blacks, will probably always feel that a fair society is unfair to them. 

That could be managed in part by not constantly telling them so, which is what many whites and whites like to tell them, for personal gain. 

There’s always profit in defecting against your own social and racial order, and this is a perennial problem of all human civilizations. 

In a perfect world we would probably not live in racially integrated societies, but the question of segregation comes up because we do occupy a physical space, in america, which contains both black and white people.

And I don’t have exact policy proposals, but I KNOW that before we can even begin to come up with good governance schemes, we need to be responding to truth, as opposed to pretty lies.

Inordinate resources are spent right now pushing blacks into elite colleges, often in cases where they are not qualified to be there. And I will stipulate here that some of them do, but many don’t.

This has several deleterious effects upon society. 

The school itself, not wanting to look bad, will lower its standards of education in order to accommodate its students. So the quality of higher education degrades. 

The student, who is in a place where she ought not to be, will feel resentment and alienation at his inability to keep up with his ostensible peers.

As a result of this, under-qualified minority students end up gravitating to majors which end in the word studies, black studies, queer studies, and so on. 

All of these curricula are vehicles for ethnic resentment, lies, and communism. So they degrade us culturally, they degrade our education, and they degrade the students who have this burden of affirmative action thrust upon them.

And there is another, subtler, spiritual poison to this as well: If you know that the scales are tipped in your favor because of your race, then you’ll never be able to believe you were good enough for your accomplishments. 

You’ll always suspect you’re a fraud, that things were handed to you out of pity, out of collective guilt, and not on the basis of your own merits.

But now, look, do you see how corrosive the racial narratives are in our society? 

I am trying to make the case to you that egalitarian racial ideology is bad, and I feel obligated to do so by framing it in terms of the harm it does to the black man, rather than the harm it does to the white. 

And there are many way that it harms whites, especially white children, who have been chosen to bear the burdens of racial integration even as champagne socialists who are totally insulated from it toast themselves and their supposed moral superiority.

Because the default setting in American culture is that blacks are sacred, that whites need to man up and suffer through it, bear the white man’s burden, do everything and anything for the sake of the black. 

And maybe this is the deepest and worst flaw in the white race, though it’s not the only one. 

We can talk about IQ or crime or whatever else, but we also need to be honest about the white inclination towards pathological altruism, towards pharisaical martyrdom, towards self-righteous, holier-than-thou moral CUCKOLDRY.

I’m not being facetious here. This isn’t to say, “oh my worst flaw is that I work too hard.” or some boomer job interview back-handed self congratulation. 

This is a real, pernicious, destructive, character flaw in the white race. We don’t even want to conceive of ourselves as a race. 

The slogan that “race doesn’t exist” isn’t some jewish trick, it’s a real, inborn, racial flaw in the white character, that we’re so hellbent on individualism, hellbent on self-sacrifice, hellbent on love of the other, the underdog, the scoundrel, that we are nearly incapable of ever acting in our own interests as a race. 

That tendency may have helped us survive in certain harsh environments, many centuries ago, but in the world we have built with instant global communication, commodity air travel, international supply chains — it becomes a pure liability. 

Trying to convince whites not to publicly martyr themselves for a cause is actually HARDER than convincing blacks to stop spending their whole paycheck on new jawdins. That’s the truth.


Part 4: Evolutionary Pressures, Genealogy of Morals


Now I’m going to give you a simple, I think maybe the simplest possible story to understand racial differences. But first we need to talk a bit more about the perfidy of science. 

Because already I know and I can hear even some of my friends getting ready to trot out their ultimate kill card for this line of thinking. They will say it is “pseudo scientific” — and indeed, I think there are some valid critiques to be made of this kind of reasoning. 

But before you brandish this word, ask yourself — are you a scientist? More specifically, are you an evolutionary biologist? 

What exactly do you mean when you say “pseudo scientific” — because what I think most people mean when they say this is that they didn’t learn this theory in school — You won’t hear this in a TED talk, and you won’t read it in an airport pop science book.

When a layman calls something “pseudo-scientific” what he really means is that Science, capital S, the institution of Science, the academy, hasn’t stamped this particular teaching with its bureaucratic rubber stamp that means all good and right-thinking people should believe it. 

If a layman tells me this is pseudoscientific, he’d better be prepared to criticize the story in terms of scientific literature, at the least. And even then there’s a real debate to be had. 

I will state again that “pseudo-scientific” is in fact an appeal to authority, that if you think this kind of “racial science” has been “debunked” you need to be able to explain how, specifically. 

What is the *method* by which it is debunked. Which specific, material facts contradict this analysis? You know what most people do, when you press them on this? 

They cite Lewontin’s fallacy, that’s their argument number one, which we’ve already discussed.

The other main thing people will say is that there’s “no evidence” these accounts are true. We could fill an entire hour talking about the magic crimestop phrase “no evidence.” 

You can wave away anything with that phrase, no matter how much evidence there is, because we live, not in a scientific regime per se, but in a regime whose political formula is grounded in scientific authority.

When it makes its decrees, it does so by declaring what the null hypothesis shall be. When you control the null hypothesis you have root access to science, you can control what it finds without even needing to justify yourself.

The sovereign authority of the state says that Science says there are no racial differences. That’s it, now the burden of proof lies on anyone making a claim to the contrary. 

Any contrary evidence is simply deemed “insufficient” by the commissars who run the scientific journals. Any layman who makes a contrary claim is now pseudoscientific. No actual scientific research needs to be done.

Prior to the 1960s or thereabouts, everyone knew that the different human races had innate differences. What changed?

 Was there some Copernican revolution in racial science? Was there some new kuhnian paradigm?

The answer is of course not, there was no scientific Revolution at that time. But there was a kind of political revolution. 

There even is a scientific study which in my opinion almost completely vindicates the account I’m about to give you, a study that everyone has heard of, the stanford marshmallow test.

I won’t bore you with any meditations on that. But have a google sometime because you may have heard that the marshmallow test doesn’t replicate. 

It absolutely does, but when its replicated they always do things like control for race, in other words, they subtract out the key independent variable and then claim that when you control for race, race doesn’t matter. 

This is typical of regime scientists, they find what they’re told to find.

A Simple Story

Anyway, a simple story, but I think it’s a very powerful one. And you will probably dismiss it when you first hear it. But the power of an idea like this is that once you hear it, it’s hard to let go. 

It explains things much more clearly its competitors. There is a single evolutionary factor which has driven many of the racial discrepancies we have examined, and it is the environment in which blacks and whites have developed. 

You will hear some people tell you that evolution occurs at such slow timescales that the human race is relatively unchanged, so there can be no deep and abiding genetic differences between races. But this is incorrect. 

Please consult Cochran and Harpending, the 10,000 year explosion, to learn about how evolution is a continuous and ongoing process, that is happening even now, in the modern day, and how many changes can happen very rapidly.

We know that one reason northern peoples such as whites and some asians are very light-skinned is because of the climate; there is much less available sunlight in northern climes, and we need exposure to sunlight in order to synthesize vitamin d and for many other reasons also. So blacks have more melanin, whites have less. 

We know that black africans are much more likely to have a condition called sickle-cell anemia, in which their blood cells have a different shape. 

This comes with some problems, but it also makes them much more resistant to malaria, which is a problem in equatorial climes and thereabouts. 

The form of the body can diverge quite rapidly in divergent environments. And the simple distillation of all of the above is that evolution does not stop at the neck.

In Africa, it’s warm all year round, there is a very long growing season, and no killing frost. So you don’t need any special skills or temporal orientation in order to survive. 

So exuberant is the productivity of the land that a lone woman can easily grow enough food for herself and her children by growing tubers in shallow dirt, and not by backbreaking exertion. More on that in a moment.

When food is abundant like this, future-orientatedness and the ability to plan ahead are not worth their cost, in evolutionary terms. So the median african lives in a kind of eternal present. 

The biggest behavioral ROI for a male in africa is to find ways to be sexually attractive to females and sire more children. 

As a result, male africans are not nearly as inclined to invest time and resources in their offspring. It’s not just a meme or a joke that black kids don’t know their dad. 

There is a deep, geological, evolutionary reason for that. A black man who invests in his children is paying a high opportunity cost relative to a delinquent father. Whether you look at sub-saharan africa or inner city detroit or CHICONGO, the behavior is the same.

Just like in africa, the majority of employment among American blacks is amongst the women. The men strut around killing each other and peacocking. 

In africa they can do this with relative impunity. In America we put them in jail, or at least we used to. It really isn’t their fault, they’re acting according to instinct. 

Bantu africans, specifically, which are one of many african races, in fact, are a lekking species. In classical lek mating, the males of the species all gather together and make visually and auditorily striking displays to compete for the attention of females. 

We know about lekking from the mating patterns of many birds. In Africa, where environmental pressures are weaker on humans than sexual pressures, the males are highly sexually selected. 

They swagger around, they spit “game,” they dance, they adorn themselves in loud and colorful clothing, and they pick pointless fights with each other in which neither party is particularly injured, as a show of dominance and fitness.

Again you can see that this pattern repeats both in sub-Saharan Africa as well as in any nightclub.

If you as a white man feel that the modality of the nightclub is alienating and uncomfortable to you, it’s because whites are not a lekking species. 

This is one of the many ways that the africanization of social norms has harmed the white man. It is part of the reason that we see all these things, pickup artistry, the red pill, the rational male, this obsession with rationality, we will speak of that in a moment.

The masculinity crisis. All of these things. 

In light of this understanding we can realize that pickup-artistry is not about picking up women at all, it’s a kind of outsider anthropology of african mating behaviors.

One of the main ways we are exposed to this is through music, through african music, you think the way rappers talk about women is “BASED” — what is it based on?

It is based on the LEK, most white men are not adapted to this, so all of this seduction strategy and evolutionary psychology and game theory is the white man’s way of re-territorializing the afreakanized american mating jungle.

The african does not have to plan for the morrow, food is always available, he can laze in the sun, eating the fruit of the land as the women do the work of raising children.

In america with our welfare and our foodstamps, with our decriminalization of shoplifting, we do all of these things to make the environment in america more hospitable to the african, more like his home.

It is no surprise then that this environment stupefies and degrades the european, who falls like any object to the state of the lowest energy available. 

Women begin to act like african women, men begin to act like african men. 

Those europeans who have the capacity for african nature are selected for, those who lack it becomes antinatalists, albeit unintentionally in most cases, and they refuse to have children. 

It takes many generations for this to come for fruition but this is a likely path for our future.

Of course It’s not the only path. The true European spirit still persists in most white americans. We have very different natures from the blacks we have brought here, because we were also shaped by our environment.

Whites and north asians evolved in places that have harsh winters. In northern europe, it snows. For half of the year, it is impossible to grow crops. 

So if you live in a place with desolate winters, the only way to survive is if you can plan ahead and store enough food. 

This creates an immediate and intense selection pressure for people who have the ability to be patient, and live in the future instead of merely the now. 

And the more you become oriented to the future, the more you also become oriented to the past. You develop a sense of history and of legacy and a vision of your place in the world. 

In sub-Saharan Africa, The primary tool of agricultural cultivation is the hoe, no pun intended, which a woman can wield as easily as a man. 

In contrast, the European climate is much more challenging and requires intensive use of the plow, which women are generally not strong enough to operate. 

Thus, in Europe, women were much more dependent upon men for food provisioning, and this creates a strong selection pressure for paternal investment. 

Now this is a very simplified version of the story and it is in many ways incomplete. There’s a lot you could say to criticize it and I would probably agree with many of those criticisms. 

There are other contingencies besides the mere fact of cold winters that have shaped our racial character. 

East asians have also been subjected to harsh winters and yet they have many differing characteristics, but what they have in common is a similar level of intelligence and a relationship to the future.

But despite its limitations I think this story has more explanatory power, not too much, but the right amount, and it goes far to explain the disparities between black and white that we see in America today.

In fact I think it has an almost irresistible logic to it, so I’m not asking you to accept this story as true, I’m just asking you to think about it, and notice that the alternative is a series of ever-more-fantastical epicycles. Fairy tales about intergenerational trauma.

What can we do with this story? If it’s true then it implies that all the things we are doing to try to improve the state of the american african — 

and we have done many things, since the sixties especially, from building them houses, relaxing the laws to go softer on their criminality, giving them free food, free healthcare, free college, preferential admissions, tax credits, remaking our entire education system, not once, but again, and again, and again, 

every few years, concocting new fashionable theories about how we just need to get to them earlier, get them free kindergarten, free preschool, soon they’ll be trying to educate the black out of them before they even leave the womb. 

But if the evolutionary story is true, then what it implies is that all of these interventions in fact are having a perverse effect, that they are subsidizing the worst tendencies of the african, making more him more wild, more stupid, more violent, more feral

And if you want to build a better african — because that was always the goal, always the goal of progressive policies, of these tender hearted sappy eyed liberals, oh the poor dears, we just need to be more compassionate towards them, give them more money, more food, and so on —

 the goal really, no matter how much they protest, is to erase the racial characteristics of the african, and make him into the white man

Because all of them, deep down, deep in their hearts, they believe in the white man’s burden, they believe it's our role as the superior race to uplift all the other nations of mankind to our heights.

And this may be my least hard-right opinion on the topic of race: I’m sympathetic to it, if it were just stated honestly and clearly, and with an unashamed racial PRIDE in the excellence of your own blood and your own people. 

I think this is something that many even of the seemingly mushiest and most treacly sort of liberals really do feel, but they’re ashamed of it, they believe they have to be ashamed of it, and this shame becomes a source of self sabotage.

But it’s also why they can’t resist listening to us, why they are thrilled to hate us, why there is something salacious in all their little watchlists and catalogs of all the things we say. 

Again this is the nature of seduction, it’s not about implanting a desire, but about giving a repressed desire a safe way to express itself

Genealogy of Morals

In closing we’re going to look at Nietzsche, and what he had to say about the shaping of the German spirit. 

This is from the Genealogy of Morals, which I am told is the only book by Nietzsche that is still taught in leftist academic programs, which is to say all academic programs,

because if you squint at it just right it they can make it seem to read as a support for the kinds of revolting sexual degeneracy that most college campuses and woke boardrooms now advocate.

But it doesn’t say anything of the sort, and I claim this book contains in fact a racial doctrine which is much more radical than anything you will see in the online right today in the majority of cases

What he does say, and he uses a kind of Darwinian logic, is how the German conscience, that demanding inner voice, which compels the German man to be sensitive, faithful, and above all, thoughtful, arises and develops precisely out of its opposite.

It is the merciless brutality of the German people, over generations, their imposition upon their own people for the deficit of these qualities,  their genius for punishment, that has created the German conscience.

It was the practice of drawing and quartering, 

breaking on the wheel, boiling in oil, 

the flaying of flesh and carving out the meat of a man’s breast, 

it was through all these things, that the German people made PAIN their mnemonic, they imposed upon themselves a particular capacity for memory, they developed the ability to keep a promise. 

Nietzsche has great reverence for this power, the power to bind yourself to your own will continuously, this is a sign of the highest form of life,

to be simultaneously a beast of prey, a magnificent blond brute, and yet to possess a will which can command this animal, not to tame it but to unleash it at the appropriate time

reason, seriousness, mastery over the emotions, all these gloomy, dismal things which are called reflection, all these privileges and pageantries of humanity —

These things find their foundation in BLOOD. And CRUELTY.

The white man has been more cruel to himself than he ever was to any black.

So Nietzsche believes, and I believe, that all good things arise out of their opposite, that love and kindness and charity find their genesis only in brutality, and in a kind of innocent delight in brutality

It was not out of a desire to uplift himself — that uplift was only a byproduct

But one must be careful what he says with relation to these topics. Because Nietzche also says that our unwitting project of self-domestication has gone too far, that what may have started in uplift has terminated in degeneration

In the complete loss of the aristocratic character of man

That very essence of all civilisation is to train out of man, the beast of prey, a tame and civilized animal, a domesticated animal

And yet I ask you to consider if the african has ever had such a thing imposed upon him, and whether the true legacy of slavery might be that the white man, owing to his own decline,

having fallen into a state of over-civilization, of being too tame, of driving from himself every trace of wildness and ferocity — might it not be that the white man failed to finish the job?