Somewhere along the way, Valizadeh got distracted by racist racists talking racism. He really doesn’t want to talk about racism. Honestly, I can’t blame him. Daryush isn’t British WASP’y white; he’s more Persian-white. If the Injuns all suddenly had the power to ship us back to where we originated, I’d be visiting relatives in Britain and Sweden, mostly. My kids would add Poland and maybe Germany. Valizadeh would be returning to Armenia, according to his self-identified genealogy. For those that struggle with geography, I’ll link a map.
If you do know something about geography, you will know that Valizadeh’s folks presumably hail from Iran and Turkey, and since his mom’s Armenian, we’re talking Transcaucasia. Yep, that Caucasia, recently of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, except when it’s Turk or Persian (Iranian) Caucasia. To be fair to Iran and it’s peoples, Valizadeh’s claim his father is “full Iranian” is a little like claiming to be full Chinese: some specificity may be lacking. For our purposes, let’s assume he’s functionally “Caucasian” (whatever that means) by presuming his parents married according to some sense of shared heritage as well as overall compatibility, unlike my folks who shared American heritage and some European gene-stock, and little else.
So, when Valizadeh writes books about so-called love tourism…
[An aside: I don’t have a big problem with the term love tourism. Sex tourism, regrettably, has come to be synonymous with travelling overseas to rent sexual favors from sometimes underage prostitutes. Valizadeh has no intention of buying sex from women. He requires consent – as vigorous a consent as he can obtain. The small problem with the term love tourism is that it falls flat to my ears as a 20-years married man. Reducing the definition of love to a sterile overseas rutting vacation seems dull. I mean dull in the opposite of smart sense.]
…and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various nations for love tourism, but simultaneously claims that, “race should not be used as a pillar, foundation, or main component of your belief system,” one is obligated to evaluate Valizadeh’s claims more closely. So, let’s a take a brief look at his statement on race, issued 25 February 2014.
I personally believe that race differences exist. Varying evolutionary pressures in different environments created the world’s races, leading to genetic differences in personality, physiology, and thinking that can’t be entirely attributed to environmental upbringing. These differences give each race their own profile of strengths and weaknesses that make them compatible and incompatible with certain behaviors and features of society.
So far, he’s clearly aligned with Bad Horse and the Evil League of Evil. And Nazis. Never forget Nazis.
Beyond considering the scientific basis for some race generalizations, “race realism” stops for me.
Hold onto your hats, folks. Race doesn’t matter to a racist? Wait, that may not be quite right. He’s saying races aren’t interchangeable in the sense that Arabs are “incompatible with democracy” (due to a cultural artifact), but that he doesn’t make his decisions based upon that hypothesis because he’s not a “policy wonk concerned with immigration, a university official in charge of an affirmative action program, or a politician who creates actual policy.”
[None of which really makes a lick of sense to my tiny little brain.]
Gentlemen of Neoreaction, I present the bullshit to which you now succumb.
Benefits from studying race realism may apply to groups who subscribe to ingroup nationalism, but not to a body of work built on a foundation of game and male achievement.
Sure, you’ll say, “No, I’m not an advocate of Game. Game is evil and a distraction from the hard work we’re doing improving men.” Am I putting words in your mouth? Try this one for size.
Phalanx is a network of men’s clubs interested in living well in the modern world. We are philosophically and culturally Neoreactionary, but politically Passivist, preferring to disengage from the culture war and work on our own lives.
I’ve complained about this before, and Nyan Sandwich himself has defended Passivism as “not activism.” I don’t know about ya’ll, but we need a better definition for what we’re attempting than “not that.”
Still, we started by talking about Race and Game, so let’s get back to that. Who’s better to quote than Mr. Racissss Game PUA himself, Heartiste. [Another aside. My wife insists upon calling this guy’s blog Chateau D’Artiste.]
Poor inner game — what is known by other jargon as your state of mind or your self confidence — is inwardly directed. Good inner game is outwardly directed. It’s the difference between berating yourself for not winning over others and berating others for not winning over you. The men who are naturally good with women live outside their minds — they are externally focused. The downside is that they are usually not very introspective, but who cares about that shit when you’re getting pussy? Introspection is for dainty young women in sundresses picking buttercups in meadows.
In case it isn’t obvious, I agree with Heartiste. All the stuff he he’s been telling you – for, what? more than ten years? – is equally applicable in most business environments. I probably burned a solid year from summer 2010 through summer 2011 being stupid enough to think I should be out selling myself when I needed to stop selling myself (short). Admittedly, the quality of my work isn’t the same, but who cares about that shit when you’re making money?
Surely by now you’re asking, “Wait, aren’t we bouncing around a lot here? What, exactly, is Ted trying to say?”
There are some topics, and race is one of those topics, that scare the shit out of most people. They don’t want to discuss race. I won’t bother with the straw man argument regarding the motives of such people. I don’t care why they remain silent or equivocating regarding race. The results remain the same: eventually people who can’t talk straight about race start lying. It’s all that’s left after all the data’s presented. So, here’s some recent stuff.
First (not necessarily by chronology), Nick B. Steves.
Neoreaction …is, I think, the studied avoidance of obsessive reliance upon or partisanship for any one particular theory or narrative or point of view. I’ve called such an obsession “wankery”, without reference to it’s onanistic connotations. We are realists. And Reality doesn’t give too many figs about your obsessiveness… or, for that matter, your point of view.
Fap, fap, fap… Oh! Excuse me. I guess I’ll finish later.
Clearly neoreaction is united in wishing for [premise 1] the resurrection of an aristocratic class to advocate for and enforce social stability. Clearly neoreaction has [premise 2] no wish to establish socialism, or [premise 3] foster some false sense of egalitarianism, [premise 4] for, and only for, somewhat genetically similar peoples. [By which I presume him to mean similar to “us,” whoever that may be.]
We’ve all read Ayn Rand, right? How does Galt put it? “Check your premises.”
- Does neoreaction wish to resurrect an aristocrat class? No. Whatever remains of the old aristocrats will necessarily be required to prove worth to any subject class. I’m fairly confident we expect to create aristocrats anew as western civilization falls or changes into whatever comes next.
- Does neoreaction necessarily shun socialism? Not unless we’re a bunch of libertardians. If we say that social order is our goal, then that itself requires some (albeit modest) socialized reduction of dog-eat-dog competition. Honor, if naught else. Gentlemen, trust me, going solo isn’t fun. Hence Phalanx. Sooner rather than later, some sort of socialism creeps into the culture. The trick is defining the boundaries.
- Does neoreaction fight a false sense of egalitarianism? You’re joking, right? Here I am, writing under a pseudonym, and a really offensive pseudonym at that, and yet I get replies to my various thoughts. That, friends, is egalitarianism. You wanna know what’s not egalitarian? I’ve never spoken to the senior partner of my primary client, except once, when I thanked him for paying me for my work. That’s what’s not egalitarian.
- Does neoreaction care about limiting egalitarian notions to only “somewhat genetically similar” people? Gosh, I hope so. Else I’ve wasted a lot of time with you chinamen.
It is “wankery” [fap, fap, fap] to think that all answers, or the only “trustworthy” answers, for the problems of human society lie in the science of HBD. If you are a[n autistic] hammer, it is easy to believe that all problems are [rational] nails. Not falling into that trap [rationality] doesn’t mean do not be a hammer [autistic rationalist] or that [autistic rationalist] hammers are worthless. If science [testing hypotheses to develop theories] denies what is plainly before our faces, then that’s not science, it’s wankery[fap]—on a level with the Climate Change Industrial Complex, only much less well funded. If the science cannot support what is plainly before our faces, then it simply means that the answers we seek are, whether for now or forever, not found in this branch of science. Epistemic humility [which is a fancy way of saying, “I don’t know”] should be a first refuge for the realist.
Nick’s managed to set several brain-traps. First off, there’s the classic, “Plainly this is true, therefore if the test of our hypothesis proves that our hypothesis wrong, then our test was poorly devised.” Nick supports this further by adding, true to thede, it’s “not science, it’s wankery[fap]-on a lever with Climate Change…” So, yeah, I’m supposed to agree that because climate change is bullshit, then obviously Nick’s position is correct because…
…indisputable facts plainly before our faces…:
Ethnically and religiously homogeneous societies …tend to have higher levels of social trust
…social trust ….reduce[s] transaction costs, [making] a “society” richer and stronger;
The tendency …for people to prefer the company (and sexual congress of) persons phenotypically and religiously similar is almost universal in humans;
All societies develop some sense of identity …; there is a …“us”, and …“not us”;
Societies that grow, by whatever means [<—disagree], to sizes larger than a tribe or kin-based clan have obvious advantages…
The amalgamation …into larger co-operative societies is …“civilization”;
Civilization [is evolutionarily recent].
I’ll interrupt briefly to quibble some of the above. First, a society may grow by acquisition of other societies. This is not a way to grow, per se, but a means to expand alliances. Growing a culture is necessarily organic in the “fuck me, please” sense of organic. Right now, Sweden is growing “by whatever means.” That does not grow a society; that drowns a society.
Second, civilization is not the aggregation of humans into large groups. The word for that is city. As in, “Cain built a city and called the name of the city Enoch.” Civilization is a bit harder. If you need a checklist, look for the things that get lost when civilizations collapse, such as writing and agriculture.
Anyway, Nick continues.
A “nation” is a people group with a sense …of common identity. It is an “us”. …It is no surprise that the Sense of Us does not arise for reasons of pure genetic self-interests. No one, at least no one non-retarded [uh… what? I don’t understand. can you use smaller words?], ever expected it to. The Sense of Us arises from manifold factors: shared genetics, shared ideology, shared religion, shared geography, shared history, shared culture, to name only a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
Let’s examine all these contributors to the Sense of Us Nick describes: genetics, ideology, religion, geography, culture, and history. Remember, civilization is recent: we’re at most only 8,000 years out of deep darkness. What do we know about people 5,900 years and more before ya’ll’s christ? They don’t move around a lot. Genetic drift takes at least hundreds if not thousands of years. All religion and ideology is local; history is what your elders can verbally communicate.
In other words, until very recently – say, in anno domini vestri 1500 or later – genetics, ideology, religion, geography, history, and culture are all integrally connected. These things are not separate.
هناك إله واحد، الله، ومحمد رسول الله
No matter how far that ethnic artifact may reach, it can only ever be a local phenomenon, because the genetics are harbored within individuals. Does Allah want me to tie explosives to my chest and explode? Let’s ask the (local) imam. Do my daughters drive cars or stay home? Depends on if we’re in the Saudi’s kingdom or the Swiss Alps. When in Rome, right?
But “Ethno-Nationalism”, in the Neoreactionary playbook, is not and never was a synonym for “race nationalism” or “white genetic interests” or “anti-miscegenation programme” or any such wankery [fap, fap]. Phenotypes matter. But they don’t matter so much that it becomes our sole focus (wankery [fap]). Culture and religion matters too, but not to the point of wankery [fap]. Technology matters, double-entry accounting matters, commercial interests matter… but never to the point of wankery [fap. fap. -almost!].
We could all get really pedantic about what we mean here, so… let’s do it! If I’m a Scot, then ethno-nationalism equals Scottish racial nationalism and Scottish genetic interests and an effort to retain the Scottish appearance of Scots, else they aren’t Scots, are they? If they’re a bunch of foreigners living in Scotland, that would make them… English? So, if Nick’s trying to be sincere, here’s utterly fucking the whole works. Let’s say there’s this thing we’ll call “American” that’s based on some early colonial ancestry plus some admixtures of later settlers into western territories, especially after the War of Northern Aggression, aka the Scot-Irish & Cavalier genocide. Let’s say further that the overwhelming population of settlers prior to British dumping of Irish into America were from some few countries with a known native stock: English, Scottish, Welsh, German, Dane, Lowland, French, Spanish, et cetera. Now, imagine, for just a moment, that this colonial stock, now roughly 200 years established on a portion of a continent, must contend with an immigrating population from all parts of the globe. Just to make things a bit more complicated, let’s consider that many of the things Nick mentions – culture, religion, technology, accounting practice, and commercial interests – are integral to the history of a people, mostly homogenized over the course of 200 years, and a part of their assumptive world. The immigrating populations (for they are not unified nor uniform) do not know the culture, do not adopt the religion, are unfamiliar with the technology, use different accounting practice (research India and Arabia), and do not share commercial interests. How is concern for these matters by the established population – and academic interest in that topic by philosophers – akin to masturbation?
If there is any distinction in the Neoreactionaries treatment of so-called ethnonationalism, it is the recognition that various ethnics posses various ethnonationalities, and these ethnonationalities compete. What follows is a conclusion that matters directly to the matter at hand and fits quite handily into the “white genocide” meme: there is no reason any ethnic betray his ethnonation, except that he is not a member. When we speak about prog polits we are addressing exactly this phenomenon: Progressives are not a part of the so-called white nationalist ethnonation. It does not matter whether they are actually Jewish ethnics or adherents to a Mormon religion or Lesbian thede, they have ceased to be “white,” because they have ceased to be loyal to their own race.