Foseti recently compared and contrasted the histories of Rhodesia and South Africa and their racial ideologies, in his review of “Bitter Harvest” by Ian Smith, the last white leader of Rhodesia.
He notes favorably the policies of Rhodesia, which were what we call “color-blind” in the US, and what he terms “disparate impact racism”. This is the idea that people should be treated by objective standards other than race. In the concept of early 60’s liberalism, because the races are not inherently different, this will lead to the apportionment of benefits, privileges and honors more or less evenly across the races.
The scientific and empirical evidence however is that the races are inherently different, that individual qualities such as intelligence, conscientiousness, diligence, athleticism, impulsiveness and propensity to violence are distributed statistically on what is formally called a “normal distribution” and informally a “bell curve”, and that the center point of this distribution is different for different races. Due to the shape of the bell curve, these differences are particularly visible at the far ends, or “tails” (although the edge of a bell is not called a tail, so the metaphor is mixed). Thus we see that physics professors are heavily Jewish, and NFL defensive backs are heavily black.
This is blindingly obvious to almost everyone, and there is in general no great anguish about this. Blacks don’t in general care much there are few black physics professors, and Jews in general don’t care much that there are few (or I’m pretty sure no) Jewish cornerbacks. All the same while it is not actually illegal to think this, it is illegal for a white person to say this. Any white person who says this, or can be shown to think this by observable behavior, is what is called a “racist” and cannot legally hold any kind of a supervisory position or any kind of a customer contact position. He can work in some menial job but can’t be considered socially acceptable in any way.
When it became apparent after around 1965 that equal treatment was not going to give the results predicted, the idea that was developed was that any objective standard that produced a different result for blacks than white had to be racist, by definition. This is clearly both paranoid and ridiculous, Stalinist even in its paranoia and ridiculousness, but it is the law of the land in the US.
Foseti’s concept is that the differences in the races should simply be openly accepted and uses Rhodesia as an example of this. The whites who managed large farms in Rhodesia had no interest in withholding economic or political power but if blacks wanted these things they had to acquire them through their own efforts and abilities. But Rhodesia was an anomaly. It was never a country, it was a business, a concession by the British government to Cecil Rhodes. The small number of white managers who ran the farms provided great benefits to blacks in the region, because they brought management skills blacks don’t have that provided good wage employment for blacks and large quantities of food for all.
I think the reason that Rhodesia was stable for as long as it was was that there were only a small number of whites. If they were rich, they were also few and their wealth was not highly visible and could be thought of as unusual. Nonetheless, even if Rhodesia wasn’t explicitly racist and white supremacist it was a society that was mostly black run by a small white minority, and to world opinion that was totally unacceptable, even more than the explicitly racist and white supremacist South Africa.
In a world environment without “democracy”, “human rights” and “racial equality” would Rhodesia have survived? Would the idea that acknowledging racial differences and using them to benefit people as a whole have been accepted? I don’t think so. Rhodesia would have had a better chance because the number of whites was small, but at some point some blacks would have realized they could just take over and convinced the rest to go along.
Foseti sees that Rhodesia was well-managed and pleasant for all; Moldbug has written the same about the Belgian Congo, post-Leopold. Would sub-Saharan Africa be better off under a small number of technocratic European managers? That’s easy to say. The rule of European managers in Europe wasn’t all that keen though, if you were a crofter. You were likely to be put off your land and subjected to all sorts of unaccountable outrages, especially if you were religiously non-conformist. It’s just a little easier to take such outrages if they are perpetrated by a member of your own nation, race and religion, and I suppose that’s just as true if you are an African as if you are a Highlander or Irish. The lower classes of Europe being white were more qualified to get involved in managing their own affairs, but Africans were not going to be convinced of their lack. Of course the end of aristocratic and managerial rule in Europe ended the rule of calm and pragmatic people, and put dangerous hotheads in the driver’s seat, just as it did in Africa. The results were not good in either place, but the change was probably inevitable.
Foseti looks more unfavorably at what he calls the “white nationalist” racism of the original whites of South Africa, the Dutch-French-German Calvinist pioneers called Boers. The Boers wanted independence from the colonial powers and separation from blacks. The Boer republics prohibited slavery but also mandated racial separatism- like the free state Kansas constitution. From the standpoint of educated, sophisticated people, this is hopelessly retrograde. A multiracial society is the norm. For liberals, this multiracial society will have differentiation, but this will be attenuated by giving minorities affirmative action jobs that pay more than the market will pay. For conservatives, it will be attenuated by improving education and living conditions for minorities by introducing conservative ideas and lifestyles. For genteel reactionaries like Foseti and Moldbug, the differentiation is not attenuated, but simply accepted as a matter of reality.
We know the first two don’t work. Genteel reactionaries can claim their idea hasn’t been tried yet, but that is no reason to believe it would. The success of a “color-blind” society depends on people forming alliances based on class, education and income and not race and culture associated with race. But this hasn’t happened even under the current regime where we have ensured the existence of a black middle class with affirmative action. A color-blind society would have very few upper-middle class blacks and few middle-class blacks. Racial solidarity would be even stronger.
Whites are the only group that doesn’t believe racial solidarity is primary. Even Ivy-educated, technocratic blacks like Obama and Cory Booker are black first. When people have the opportunity, they separate. Whites move away from lower-class blacks, upper-class blacks seek other upper-class blacks. Lower-class blacks move away from other lower-class blacks, in the phenomenon Paul Kersey calls “black undertow” but they should not be thought of as moving away from other blacks but from the conditions they create, as they are soon joined by other lower-class blacks having paved the way.
So when the races come in contact, do they soon withdraw and isolate themselves? No, because non-whites benefit from contact with whites. Blacks prefer to socialize with other blacks, but they can’t work with other blacks because blacks are not economically productive. Blacks need at least financial contact with whites.
Foseti lives, by his account, in a mixed neighborhood in DC that is at least middle-class yuppie and maybe a bit higher. He doesn’t seem to think much of his black federal government coworkers, but does not mind his black neighbors. Whites of some means- I think he makes around six figures, which is not a lot of money in the big city but is still real money- tend to see minorities as useful on some level. They do simple jobs OK, and do not threaten or intimidate them.
There is a class divide here, and I suspect it means the difference between the genteel, bemused race-realism of Foseti, Moldbug and Sailer and the white separatism or white nationalism of working class whites. As a working-class white, I don’t see the overall benefit to white people of the presence of non-whites. Affluent whites in the city can’t see the possibility of living without non-whites. Who would clean and cook, and watch the children of the wealthy? But believe it or not, white people can clean, cook, and watch children perfectly well. In Canada, the hotel maids are white. There are even white hotel maids in Montana. Sailer understands this intellectually if not emotionally, but Foseti and Moldbug don’t even seem to consider the possibility.
If there are racial differences, there is racial conflict. A multiracial society can be run on an authoritarian basis satisfactory to the ruling class and their factotums, but the people on the bottom will suffer- in the case of our own authoritarian multiracial society, the “social democratic” West of Western Europe and North America, that means the white working class.
Above a certain class level, whites live around minorities without trouble. Below it, minorities create misery for whites and they will go to great trouble and cost to avoid them.