Is A Color-Blind Society Possible?

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.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Is A Color-Blind Society Possible?

  1. Heil Hizzle Mein Nizzle says:

    “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.”

    This is what makes Jared Taylor remarkable. His bona fides, degrees from the Sorbonne and Yale, speaking French and Japanese with equal ease, mark him as upper class, and yet by being vocally for white people, he shows solidarity with the white working-class (and even white prisoners) much to the consternation of our narrative managers (i.e. the SPLC or Tim Wise) who want all white nationalists toothless and swastika-covered.

    You don’t give Moldbug enough credit, though. He admitted the elite would do well to let the ‘grits’ from Hagerstown cut their grass, rather than the Third World Guatemalan rabble.

  2. oogenhand says:

    A color-blind society is the only society logically compatible with the idea that race is a social construct. If the Left doesn’t want a color-blind society, they should find a way to objectively classify races.

  3. Ryu says:

    I’d rather work as a janitor in a racist white nation than a commisar in a multiculti jungle. Why would I want my ability and my labor to be used by a government destructive to my race? You’ll never going to get the sort of fanaticism necessary to cause change from the overly intellectual types. They are not willing to hate because they have a way out. Race realism is not enough! This isn’t a game, it’s not a debate. It’s the future of our people and you can’t expect those who have one foot in the boat to be “all in.”

  4. PA says:

    Moldbug’s turn toward race realism has been strong since his early days advocating race-blind Formalism. The recent “Hagerstown” article is a call for a one-party white state. Earlier he wrote at least two poems about being a father in a world of racial menace.

    The “genteel” race realism of Foseti and others is in part, I think, a function of their youthful superego holding fast lest he falls into the forbidden city of hard truths.

  5. robroysimmons says:

    Jack Kemp’s Blank Slate Conservatism which came to dominate Conservatism Inc. is toast, Identity Politics has won. Good, so the next step is to introduce the phrase “anti-white” into the intellectual vernacular. No this won’t mean the end of 5000 word essays read by dozens it will simply be a fitting conclusion for our intellectual thought where we can actually be seperate from the overly complex genocidal establishment. In short “anti-white” will be our “anti-semite.”

  6. asdf says:

    Anyone who has been in the midwest, where service jobs are done by whites instead of blacks, know right away how much better it is.

    Foseti gets paid $150k/year plus benefits by the Cathedral to do 40/hours a week of fairly easy work. How far away from Cathedral ideas can such a person get?

  7. Evelyn Baring’s Ancient and Modern Imperialism basically boils down to the fact that the subjects of the British Empire were unable to make themselves British and get along with British rule because the rulers and subjects were of two different races. He remarks that education not merely doesn’t work to integrate, but has the opposite effect in that it creates an intelligentsia opposed to the alien race’s rule. A story about an eloquent defense in English given by the Indian murderer of an Englishman is related to reinforce the point. Moldbug is familiar with the work so it’s a bit odd he’s only lately come around to the horror of living in a multicultural society, after not having had a problem with a corps of high IQ managers and an ocean of NAM coolies.

    Genteel reactionaries, as you aptly term them, are afraid of dirtying their intellectual reputation with the label of White nationalist, as if this makes them some kind of horrible monster. Even if they (justifiably) spew a torrent of bile upon blacks, American women, liberals, etc., etc.

    • oogenhand says:

      That is why you should educate yourself and form an intelligentsia yourself. Buy “Occupied America”, or “Stolen Continents”. Learning Arabic and getting a copy of “Umdat As-Salik” would also be great.

    • That matches with the phenomenon that the more privileges blacks get, the angrier they get (as confessed by a black, Ellis Cose, “The Rage of the Privileged Class”. I will have to read that, but it makes perfect sense.

  8. miss c says:

    On the point you made about not being able to speak on what most people know is true. Yesterday, I was reading about the state of Kansas trying to get a guy who had donated sperm to a lesbian couple, who have 8 kids and are now unemployed, to pay child support. I, personally, hope they do make the guy pay. Maybe it will stop men in Kansas from donating sperm to lesbians. Anyway, a commenter on the article made this short statement, “Pathetic. The lesbians I mean.” Unfortunately, he used his real name to comment. A gay guy commented that he googled the guy and sent a complaint to the corporation the guy worked for, who did not “approve” of such sentiments. Of course, the guy did not make disparaging remarks about gays. He made disparaging remarks about women who had more kids than they could support. He used the term lesbians to identify the women, who themselves identify as lesbians. So now we are going to get fired for even calling lesbians, lesbians. I am so confused.

  9. Vale says:

    People rarely see the big picture – and Anti-White intellectuals and “thinkers” don’t want them to. Ideas like racial equality, the enforcement of racial diversity and the open promotion of racial mixing are things which occur exclusively in White countries. There are no melting pots in Africa or Asia, and there never will be. Meanwhile, in White countries immigration is never challenged – even when (or perhaps especially because) the founding population has been reduced to a racial minority.

    Those who think race is “irrelevant” – the same people who told us Communism was “inevitable” and that all criminals could be rehabilitated – are wrong (yet again), which is why there is currently an explosion is race realism.

  10. Pingback: On orderly societies « Foseti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s