The problem of “racism”, genetics, math, and justice and how it all relates to the current WW3
This will be initially a little slow, but I trust increasingly interesting, and I think useful, for those who have attention spans past the current “fruitfly on crack” level.
The problem of “racism” is only “complex” because people do not:
1. Understand the interplay between the above mentioned varaibles.
2. Use words correctly or define them properly when there is any ambiguity.
In the case of the boogeyman of “racism” the problem stems first of all from the non-definition of the word. Historically it wasn’t a negative, it was a descriptive term. But let’s see how it is defined today in the woke online dictionaries. Here are the top three results screenshotted from the search term “racism definition”.
Let’s go with the Wikipedia entry then since it is the most commonly understood meaning of the word. And let’s see what reality has to say about it.
First: are there separate groups of humans? Of course there are. It is a very simple thing to define as many sets by as many parameters as we like. We can divide groups of humans by multiple defining characteristics, height, eye colour, skin tone, place of birth, genetic haplogroups, or whatever else we want. Depending on the level of detail of your set descriptors, the borders of your set will be more or less “fuzzy”. For example, if you define all humans as belonging to 4 groups, say, white, black, red and yellow, in “traditional” simplistic skin “colour” your borders would be very fuzzy indeed. If however you were to define them into still broad but somewhat better defined groups, such as, say:
• Caucasoids with a genetic component of Oriental or Negroid below a certain threshold.
• Negroids with a genetic component of Oriental or Caucasoid below a certain threshold
• Orientals with a generic component of Caucasoid or Negroid below a certain threshold
• Whatever human doesn’t fit into one of the above three categories
You would now have three more or less coherent groups that are statistically going to be generically quite similar and a fourth group of what we might term “the leftovers”. And please note, if you are getting upset about any of the terms I use as descriptors, you are in the generic subset of humans knows as “morons”.
None of this is about feelings. It doesn’t matter if I call them crakers, niggers, and chinks.
Now, based on the above 4 definitions, can we see broad statistically significant trends?
Yes, we do.
The Caucasians are generally higher IQ than the Negroids and the Orientals higher IQ (by a smaller margin) than the Caucasoids when they are East Orientals, (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans) but not so much when they are West Oriental or Asian (Pakistani, Hindu).
So, objectively speaking, we can see that at a certain level of granularity the differences not only exist, but are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence that spends a little rime observing different groups.
Of course, these very broad terms can be further refined. While Nigerians, Xhosa, Zulu and Tsonga are all African Negroids, their culture is quite different and different enough that I personally prefer the Tsonga over the others, the Zulus marginally over the Nigerians and the Xhosa in last place. Similarly, in general terms I’d rather hang out with Russians than Polacks or Germans, and like hanging out with Italians, supposedly my own group, not particularly more than other Europeans like the Latvians or Portuguese.
Again, the differences in culture, ethnicity and religion are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence.
Are there individual exceptions? Sure. Always. Even large in number depending on how you define your groups, but statistically the realities are what they are.
Then we add in genetics and we find that these too have a now utterly undeniable impact on behaviour too. Specifically the propensity to violence or long term timeline preference or dietary tolerances, likelihood of incidence of certain diseases and so on. Once again, nature has stamped its reality on us in many, many, many ways, and the statistical realities of these things are objectively undeniable.
So, in short, the differences exist. Howsoever you wish to define humans into different groups, differences do, and always will, exist.
That’s just an objective fact and the Universe (reality itself) does not care at all how you feel about it. If you are 5’10” you will never be 6’2” and trying to pretend you are, getting “surgery” to lengthen your legs, or wearing really high heels will only make your life harder and more unpleasant than simply accepting, and working with, the specifics of your situation. Reality invariably rewards those who respect it and punishes those who try to ignore it. If you have any objections to this undeniable fact run full speed into a wall or walk off the second story balcony of your apartment and if you survive let me know how you suddenly changed your mind.
The issue then is not reality.
The issue is perception, definitions and justice.
Let’s now look at that word: superiority.
We can define this simply as “better than” but in the context of “racism” we need to add a few words, so it becomes:
“Better than X at Y” where X and Y are the defining set and activity respectively.
At this point we can now make objective statements that are statistically relevant again, and factual. Just as we can factually say that under normal conditions, Joe can run faster than Bob, or Alan is taller than Will.
We can then say that in general terms, Caucasoids will have higher IQ than Negroids and lower ones than East Orientals. Similarly for mathematical ability.
We can also say that in general Negroids will have better aptitude for certain physical activities than either Caucasoids or Orientals, for example boxing, sprinting, certain types of endurance activities and so on.
Again, these are indisputable facts.
But it is also an indisputable fact that every group will tend to be better than the other groups at something.
What that something is differs from group to group and how you define them, and society may give different somethings different values in general or within specific circumstances.
For example, while a white physics professor is more likely to know how to calculate the forces required to uphold a temporary bridge over a stream, if I am trying to find water to survive in the Kalahari desert, I would very much prefer to have a Khoi-San with me even if they don’t even have a word for physics and he doesn’t speak a word of any language I know. So the “superiority” of any group over another is relative to the time, circumstance, characteristic being looked at and so on.
Philosophically then, this brings us to a point of justice. And ultimately this boils down to a few simple questions. The main one being:
Should we treat apparent members of a specific group differently from apparent members of different groups?
The obvious answer is, YES. The initial evaluation is going to be based on the statistical significance that you have personal experience with. And it really doesn’t matter if you really, really, really, don’t want to notice such differences. Your brain does it automatically. It’s literally how brains work. If your brain could not make value judgements, on the order of many of them a second, you literally would not be able to function. Incidentally, this is why Artificial Intelligences (well, what passes for them these days) if left to their own devices, invariably become extremely racist. Since computers don’t care about feelings, and don’t have any, large accumulation of data sets tends to make them become extremely statistically aware of various tendencies various sets of humans have and act accordingly.
This very logical and objective way of doing things, which, by the way, is intrinsically fair from a purely mechanistic/mathematical perspective, generally really upsets humans though.
The slightly more in depth answer is that you probably should make allowances for those fuzzy borders and the outliers that don’t fit within a certain set so well, but only insofar as it affects you personally on a one-to one or one to a few scale at most. In other words, the genius mathematician that is also a world-class swimmer that happens to be a Zulu, is an outlier and may be a great guy, but you know very well, he is not representative of the average Zulu.
As I have mentioned before, the average Caucasian, when compared to the average Japanese in Japan, behaves, dresses, acts and reacts in a more generally uncivilised and rude manner compared to the Japanese and especially so from the Japanese cultural perspective. It is therefore natural that the average Japanese would initially eye me with a certain level of disdain, suspicion, or reserve. Should he then bother to get to know me a little he might decide that this particular round-eyed, badly-dressed, barbarian is alright after all, but I certainly would not expect Japan to make it’s policy against Caucasians in Japan suit me personally. And if I were the Japanese emperor I would certainly make it so that round-eyed, white barbarians are punished harshly if they do not behave according to the norms of my Japanese culture.
Do I have problem with any of this? No. None at all.
Have I personally been subjected to what most people would call “racist abuse”? Certainly. 25 years in Africa with a white skin will do that to you. or even just a few weeks in Japan, or even just in a different nation from your own. That, is simply how the cookie crumbles. Is it always fair? No, it isn’t but again, you might as well complain about the rain, or the height you were born with or the colour of your eyes or your skin. It is how it is.
But what about the humanity?!
Well, what about it? If you treat me well, at an individual level, I’ll treat you well right back. And if you know how to carry yourself, you can generally get by in most places. I have found myself more than once in situations that could have turned very ugly very fast, and I was lucky in how they resolved, because I had the “wrong” skin colour, or cultural expression, or whatever. I have also been in situations where it would have been legitimate to expect trouble because of my skin and/or culture, and instead been received very kindly and graciously.
In real life, shit happens. I met a Tsonga (Sub-Saharan African) that was a genius at math and could do integration in his head. I have met Khoi San that I would never be able to match at tracking animals in the bush if I spent the next ten years trying to learn from them, and I have met wealthy and very expensively educate people that are dumber than rocks. But the point is that statistically, certain trends are going to be as they are.
Cliches are cliches for a reason, after all.
And generalisations, as generalisations, can still be factual.
Of course, philosophically, you may say that the soul of an illiterate African is just as worthy of life as that of a Japanese master of Calligraphy. And in principle, I would not disagree with you, however, in how I go about ordering my life, choosing my neighbours and enforcing or following the laws of the land, I absolutely will take note of statistical realities concerning other humans. And so do you, so does everyone. No matter how hard you might try to deny it or reject the idea. The fact is you too do not want to move your home and family next to a campground of thieving gypsies with a history of violent criminality and playing loud music at all hours.
The only “difficulty” is in how to deal with the specifics of a single case when faced with the outlier. In normal human nature, more prevalently in certain human groups than others, one does not want to be arbitrarily unfair to a specific individual as a result of a perceived characteristic that ultimately may not be indicative of his ability.
But the only way to avoid doing this is to provide equal opportunity of access, but let the results determine the outcome. A meritocracy is the fairest system of all.
Even then there will be natural imbalances due to all sorts of factors, many out of anyone’s control, but in principles a meritocracy is the way things should work. And such a state of affairs has been historically created most closely in:
Catholic nations that used Roman Law as the guiding principle.
Protestant Countries that used Common Law.
Pagan Countries that had very strict codes of conduct/law.
None are perfect, but personally I find the Catholic one the best of the lot. The Protestant version tends to mechanise human beings and treat them like robots, and the pagan one tends to need to be draconian in order to control the lowest common denominator. The Catholic one has enough flexibility to be adaptable and yet strict rules you are not to break.
So, once again, I find that historically, Catholic nations were far more pleasant to live in than any other place. Certainly there are notable comparable cultures, but what is not in question is that all of these had become homogenous before they achieved their peak civilisation.
In conclusion then, while one must never lose their humanity at an individual level, the best system for human beings is to, in general terms (and pretty closely defined general terms at that) stick to their own groups, composed of people similar to them in physical, intellectual, cultural and religious appearance and custom.
And ultimately, this is why the mystery meat globohomo clown world will inevitably lose to the Multipolar World that Russia and China talk about, and others are rapidly getting on board of. Ultimately, you can’t deny nature, just as you can’t fight the Ocean with a paddle or a boat or even a wall. Sooner or later, chickens come home to roost or they die.
Conclusion
Once such simple and basic concepts as are described here are accepted by a majority, things will rapidly return to normal. That is, to a sane, multipolar world. And if those people who become aware of these simple facts, should also happen to notice that a particular group of humans has intentionally, consciously, and with malice aforethought, directed things to be the way we are finding them now, it could very well be possible that such a change back to a very Multipolar World happens very fast, and possibly also with a short, quick, but extremely brutal removal of groups perceived to have created the current conditions, howsoever such groups might be defined, and perceived.
Whether these be the Davos attendees, the bankers, the politicians, the Bilderberger group, freemasons, or any number of other definable groups, the reaction, once a certain level of awareness has been achieved, is bound to be harsh. Naturally so.
After all, it is not as if historical this kind of event hasn’t played out before in multiple eras and across the planet. The only difference enow is that everything is more connected, and it will be a lot more difficult for those deemed responsible to run and hide anywhere.
The problem of “racism”, genetics, math, and justice and how it all relates to the current WW3
This will be initially a little slow, but I trust increasingly interesting, and I think useful, for those who have attention spans past the current “fruitfly on crack” level.
The problem of “racism” is only “complex” because people do not:
1. Understand the interplay between the above mentioned varaibles.
2. Use words correctly or define them properly when there is any ambiguity.
In the case of the boogeyman of “racism” the problem stems first of all from the non-definition of the word. Historically it wasn’t a negative, it was a descriptive term. But let’s see how it is defined today in the woke online dictionaries. Here are the top three results screenshotted from the search term “racism definition”.
Let’s go with the Wikipedia entry then since it is the most commonly understood meaning of the word. And let’s see what reality has to say about it.
First: are there separate groups of humans? Of course there are. It is a very simple thing to define as many sets by as many parameters as we like. We can divide groups of humans by multiple defining characteristics, height, eye colour, skin tone, place of birth, genetic haplogroups, or whatever else we want. Depending on the level of detail of your set descriptors, the borders of your set will be more or less “fuzzy”. For example, if you define all humans as belonging to 4 groups, say, white, black, red and yellow, in “traditional” simplistic skin “colour” your borders would be very fuzzy indeed. If however you were to define them into still broad but somewhat better defined groups, such as, say:
• Caucasoids with a genetic component of Oriental or Negroid below a certain threshold.
• Negroids with a genetic component of Oriental or Caucasoid below a certain threshold
• Orientals with a generic component of Caucasoid or Negroid below a certain threshold
• Whatever human doesn’t fit into one of the above three categories
You would now have three more or less coherent groups that are statistically going to be generically quite similar and a fourth group of what we might term “the leftovers”. And please note, if you are getting upset about any of the terms I use as descriptors, you are in the generic subset of humans knows as “morons”.
None of this is about feelings. It doesn’t matter if I call them crakers, niggers, and chinks.
Now, based on the above 4 definitions, can we see broad statistically significant trends?
Yes, we do.
The Caucasians are generally higher IQ than the Negroids and the Orientals higher IQ (by a smaller margin) than the Caucasoids when they are East Orientals, (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans) but not so much when they are West Oriental or Asian (Pakistani, Hindu).
So, objectively speaking, we can see that at a certain level of granularity the differences not only exist, but are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence that spends a little rime observing different groups.
Of course, these very broad terms can be further refined. While Nigerians, Xhosa, Zulu and Tsonga are all African Negroids, their culture is quite different and different enough that I personally prefer the Tsonga over the others, the Zulus marginally over the Nigerians and the Xhosa in last place. Similarly, in general terms I’d rather hang out with Russians than Polacks or Germans, and like hanging out with Italians, supposedly my own group, not particularly more than other Europeans like the Latvians or Portuguese.
Again, the differences in culture, ethnicity and religion are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence.
Are there individual exceptions? Sure. Always. Even large in number depending on how you define your groups, but statistically the realities are what they are.
Then we add in genetics and we find that these too have a now utterly undeniable impact on behaviour too. Specifically the propensity to violence or long term timeline preference or dietary tolerances, likelihood of incidence of certain diseases and so on. Once again, nature has stamped its reality on us in many, many, many ways, and the statistical realities of these things are objectively undeniable.
So, in short, the differences exist. Howsoever you wish to define humans into different groups, differences do, and always will, exist.
That’s just an objective fact and the Universe (reality itself) does not care at all how you feel about it. If you are 5’10” you will never be 6’2” and trying to pretend you are, getting “surgery” to lengthen your legs, or wearing really high heels will only make your life harder and more unpleasant than simply accepting, and working with, the specifics of your situation. Reality invariably rewards those who respect it and punishes those who try to ignore it. If you have any objections to this undeniable fact run full speed into a wall or walk off the second story balcony of your apartment and if you survive let me know how you suddenly changed your mind.
The issue then is not reality.
The issue is perception, definitions and justice.
Let’s now look at that word: superiority.
We can define this simply as “better than” but in the context of “racism” we need to add a few words, so it becomes:
“Better than X at Y” where X and Y are the defining set and activity respectively.
At this point we can now make objective statements that are statistically relevant again, and factual. Just as we can factually say that under normal conditions, Joe can run faster than Bob, or Alan is taller than Will.
We can then say that in general terms, Caucasoids will have higher IQ than Negroids and lower ones than East Orientals. Similarly for mathematical ability.
We can also say that in general Negroids will have better aptitude for certain physical activities than either Caucasoids or Orientals, for example boxing, sprinting, certain types of endurance activities and so on.
Again, these are indisputable facts.
But it is also an indisputable fact that every group will tend to be better than the other groups at something.
What that something is differs from group to group and how you define them, and society may give different somethings different values in general or within specific circumstances.
For example, while a white physics professor is more likely to know how to calculate the forces required to uphold a temporary bridge over a stream, if I am trying to find water to survive in the Kalahari desert, I would very much prefer to have a Khoi-San with me even if they don’t even have a word for physics and he doesn’t speak a word of any language I know. So the “superiority” of any group over another is relative to the time, circumstance, characteristic being looked at and so on.
Philosophically then, this brings us to a point of justice. And ultimately this boils down to a few simple questions. The main one being:
Should we treat apparent members of a specific group differently from apparent members of different groups?
The obvious answer is, YES. The initial evaluation is going to be based on the statistical significance that you have personal experience with. And it really doesn’t matter if you really, really, really, don’t want to notice such differences. Your brain does it automatically. It’s literally how brains work. If your brain could not make value judgements, on the order of many of them a second, you literally would not be able to function. Incidentally, this is why Artificial Intelligences (well, what passes for them these days) if left to their own devices, invariably become extremely racist. Since computers don’t care about feelings, and don’t have any, large accumulation of data sets tends to make them become extremely statistically aware of various tendencies various sets of humans have and act accordingly.
This very logical and objective way of doing things, which, by the way, is intrinsically fair from a purely mechanistic/mathematical perspective, generally really upsets humans though.
The slightly more in depth answer is that you probably should make allowances for those fuzzy borders and the outliers that don’t fit within a certain set so well, but only insofar as it affects you personally on a one-to one or one to a few scale at most. In other words, the genius mathematician that is also a world-class swimmer that happens to be a Zulu, is an outlier and may be a great guy, but you know very well, he is not representative of the average Zulu.
As I have mentioned before, the average Caucasian, when compared to the average Japanese in Japan, behaves, dresses, acts and reacts in a more generally uncivilised and rude manner compared to the Japanese and especially so from the Japanese cultural perspective. It is therefore natural that the average Japanese would initially eye me with a certain level of disdain, suspicion, or reserve. Should he then bother to get to know me a little he might decide that this particular round-eyed, badly-dressed, barbarian is alright after all, but I certainly would not expect Japan to make it’s policy against Caucasians in Japan suit me personally. And if I were the Japanese emperor I would certainly make it so that round-eyed, white barbarians are punished harshly if they do not behave according to the norms of my Japanese culture.
Do I have problem with any of this? No. None at all.
Have I personally been subjected to what most people would call “racist abuse”? Certainly. 25 years in Africa with a white skin will do that to you. or even just a few weeks in Japan, or even just in a different nation from your own. That, is simply how the cookie crumbles. Is it always fair? No, it isn’t but again, you might as well complain about the rain, or the height you were born with or the colour of your eyes or your skin. It is how it is.
But what about the humanity?!
Well, what about it? If you treat me well, at an individual level, I’ll treat you well right back. And if you know how to carry yourself, you can generally get by in most places. I have found myself more than once in situations that could have turned very ugly very fast, and I was lucky in how they resolved, because I had the “wrong” skin colour, or cultural expression, or whatever. I have also been in situations where it would have been legitimate to expect trouble because of my skin and/or culture, and instead been received very kindly and graciously.
In real life, shit happens. I met a Tsonga (Sub-Saharan African) that was a genius at math and could do integration in his head. I have met Khoi San that I would never be able to match at tracking animals in the bush if I spent the next ten years trying to learn from them, and I have met wealthy and very expensively educate people that are dumber than rocks. But the point is that statistically, certain trends are going to be as they are.
Cliches are cliches for a reason, after all.
And generalisations, as generalisations, can still be factual.
Of course, philosophically, you may say that the soul of an illiterate African is just as worthy of life as that of a Japanese master of Calligraphy. And in principle, I would not disagree with you, however, in how I go about ordering my life, choosing my neighbours and enforcing or following the laws of the land, I absolutely will take note of statistical realities concerning other humans. And so do you, so does everyone. No matter how hard you might try to deny it or reject the idea. The fact is you too do not want to move your home and family next to a campground of thieving gypsies with a history of violent criminality and playing loud music at all hours.
The only “difficulty” is in how to deal with the specifics of a single case when faced with the outlier. In normal human nature, more prevalently in certain human groups than others, one does not want to be arbitrarily unfair to a specific individual as a result of a perceived characteristic that ultimately may not be indicative of his ability.
But the only way to avoid doing this is to provide equal opportunity of access, but let the results determine the outcome. A meritocracy is the fairest system of all.
Even then there will be natural imbalances due to all sorts of factors, many out of anyone’s control, but in principles a meritocracy is the way things should work. And such a state of affairs has been historically created most closely in:
None are perfect, but personally I find the Catholic one the best of the lot. The Protestant version tends to mechanise human beings and treat them like robots, and the pagan one tends to need to be draconian in order to control the lowest common denominator. The Catholic one has enough flexibility to be adaptable and yet strict rules you are not to break.
So, once again, I find that historically, Catholic nations were far more pleasant to live in than any other place. Certainly there are notable comparable cultures, but what is not in question is that all of these had become homogenous before they achieved their peak civilisation.
In conclusion then, while one must never lose their humanity at an individual level, the best system for human beings is to, in general terms (and pretty closely defined general terms at that) stick to their own groups, composed of people similar to them in physical, intellectual, cultural and religious appearance and custom.
And ultimately, this is why the mystery meat globohomo clown world will inevitably lose to the Multipolar World that Russia and China talk about, and others are rapidly getting on board of. Ultimately, you can’t deny nature, just as you can’t fight the Ocean with a paddle or a boat or even a wall. Sooner or later, chickens come home to roost or they die.
Conclusion
Once such simple and basic concepts as are described here are accepted by a majority, things will rapidly return to normal. That is, to a sane, multipolar world. And if those people who become aware of these simple facts, should also happen to notice that a particular group of humans has intentionally, consciously, and with malice aforethought, directed things to be the way we are finding them now, it could very well be possible that such a change back to a very Multipolar World happens very fast, and possibly also with a short, quick, but extremely brutal removal of groups perceived to have created the current conditions, howsoever such groups might be defined, and perceived.
Whether these be the Davos attendees, the bankers, the politicians, the Bilderberger group, freemasons, or any number of other definable groups, the reaction, once a certain level of awareness has been achieved, is bound to be harsh. Naturally so.
After all, it is not as if historical this kind of event hasn’t played out before in multiple eras and across the planet. The only difference enow is that everything is more connected, and it will be a lot more difficult for those deemed responsible to run and hide anywhere.
So that’s my cheery thought for this Saturday.
Have a good week-end.
You might be interested in the following posts:
Tags: Racism
This entry was posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Human Performance, Medical Science, Sedeprivationism, Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.