On racial egalitarianism - I can understand heterogeneity as a form of insurance in certain respects, but there are multiple scales at which the risk or violence can be considered.
Internally, you could argue that the risk of violence actually increases due to inter-cultural tensions.
Internationally, you'd imagine the risk of violence dropping due to increasing likelihood
of shared characteristics as a consequence of migration
As for race realism being dangerous, I agree - it's interesting to note that the fact of racial differences does not imply one must necessarily segregate or ostracise, you could just as easily be sympathetic and address the problem, as I assume liberalism attempts but in a subtle manner. Do conservatives have a hatred for the inferior? Or are these simply rationalisations for prefered group strategies?
Diversity can increase the risk of low-level violence, but the risk of high-level violence decreases.
- Armenians were as 1-3 million in 1914, out of a total Ottoman population of 18.5 million, giving their percentage as 5-16%.
- Before the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsi were 14% of the population.
- Before the Darfur Genocide, Darfuri were 17.6% of the population.
- Before the Saint-Domingue Genocide, whites were 10% of the population, with coloreds making up another 10% of the population.
These genocides have the following in common:
1. The targeted population is extremely Balkanized (they all live in one area of the country), or,
2. The target population is less than 20% of the total population.
3. The targeted population is unwilling or incapable of forming alliances with other groups.
4. The dominant group (the one doing the genocide) must have strict endogamous separation from the victim group, or else, it must enforce strict forms of religious conversion on all "mixed" populations. For example, the requiring mixed-Muslim Armenians to be Muslim rather than Christian.
5. The genocide can only begin during an existing war or during starvation conditions.
6. The genocide is often facilitated by other nations (Ukrainians and Poles participating in the Holocaust; British and Spanish blockading the French during the Saint-Domingue genocide and supplying the rebels)
It's very difficult to conceive of a genocide occurring without 2/6 of these conditions being met.
Fighting age men in America are now 50% non-white, and there isn't a strict Balkanization between white and non-white states. Whites don't practice strict endogamy or religious conversions against non-whites.
Unless whites drop below 20% of the population, I don't see genocide in America as being possible.
In South Africa, for reference, whites are only 7.3% of the population, and I still think top-down white genocide is unlikely there. Gradual low-level ethnic conflict is a different story. Obviously South Africa should be sanctioned for allowing this, but there is a distinction between top-down and bottom-up violence. Also, the Boers are partially at fault for not all moving to Orania. No one is being killed in Orania. I don't mean "moral fault," but like, "woman getting drug without friends at a party and going home with a stranger" fault.
I'd also like to mention here that most of the genocides mentioned here had some kind of deep religious divide or involved black people. Black people aren't increasing as a percentage of the American population. The incoming Hispanics are largely Christian. The incoming Asians are Buddhist or secular. Not all diversity is equal. India has maintained a very diverse population for centuries and it was only with the invasion of Islam that genocidal violence arose.
One point, as far as I can understand, Boers moving to Orania would lead to more of those conditions being met (ie 4), increasing the probability of 5 & 6, and therefore an increased risk of being wiped out. So I don't quite understand your rationale or point there unless they enforced borders and were protected.
I understand that despite the “analysis” part of your moniker you are quite hostile to non-leftist ideas.
Despite that, I will make this assertion: in the real world, your anti-natalist desire that there be a lot fewer people in the world is incompatible with the welfare state you support.
Even if the U.S. (alone) could address the problem via mass moderate-to-high skill immigration, the rest of the developed world could not.
If you want to drastically cut back Social Security and Medicaid and convert Medicare into a voucher program, then perhaps your contracting population approach can work. And I suppose you can hope for a deus ex machina that AI will deliver such overwhelming productivity that 75%+ of the country can simply leech off the few productive folks, forever, but respectfully, hope is not a strategy.
Most modern welfare states, and definitively the one in the U.S., are quasi-Ponzi schemes that can only work with both a growing economy and an increasing number of productive citizens paying for the welfare state, and in particular for welfare for the elderly.
You can assert with elitism/eugenic/Mother Gaia-worshipping zeal that you want fewer people, but the math of the modern welfare state don’t work in your world.
anyone who obsessively reads someone they think is a dipshit has too much free time on their hands. do something better with your life -- you're signaling to me that your time is worthless and you don't respect yourself.
Great article.
I love liberalism now!
On racial egalitarianism - I can understand heterogeneity as a form of insurance in certain respects, but there are multiple scales at which the risk or violence can be considered.
Internally, you could argue that the risk of violence actually increases due to inter-cultural tensions.
Internationally, you'd imagine the risk of violence dropping due to increasing likelihood
of shared characteristics as a consequence of migration
As for race realism being dangerous, I agree - it's interesting to note that the fact of racial differences does not imply one must necessarily segregate or ostracise, you could just as easily be sympathetic and address the problem, as I assume liberalism attempts but in a subtle manner. Do conservatives have a hatred for the inferior? Or are these simply rationalisations for prefered group strategies?
Diversity can increase the risk of low-level violence, but the risk of high-level violence decreases.
- Armenians were as 1-3 million in 1914, out of a total Ottoman population of 18.5 million, giving their percentage as 5-16%.
- Before the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsi were 14% of the population.
- Before the Darfur Genocide, Darfuri were 17.6% of the population.
- Before the Saint-Domingue Genocide, whites were 10% of the population, with coloreds making up another 10% of the population.
These genocides have the following in common:
1. The targeted population is extremely Balkanized (they all live in one area of the country), or,
2. The target population is less than 20% of the total population.
3. The targeted population is unwilling or incapable of forming alliances with other groups.
4. The dominant group (the one doing the genocide) must have strict endogamous separation from the victim group, or else, it must enforce strict forms of religious conversion on all "mixed" populations. For example, the requiring mixed-Muslim Armenians to be Muslim rather than Christian.
5. The genocide can only begin during an existing war or during starvation conditions.
6. The genocide is often facilitated by other nations (Ukrainians and Poles participating in the Holocaust; British and Spanish blockading the French during the Saint-Domingue genocide and supplying the rebels)
It's very difficult to conceive of a genocide occurring without 2/6 of these conditions being met.
Fighting age men in America are now 50% non-white, and there isn't a strict Balkanization between white and non-white states. Whites don't practice strict endogamy or religious conversions against non-whites.
Unless whites drop below 20% of the population, I don't see genocide in America as being possible.
In South Africa, for reference, whites are only 7.3% of the population, and I still think top-down white genocide is unlikely there. Gradual low-level ethnic conflict is a different story. Obviously South Africa should be sanctioned for allowing this, but there is a distinction between top-down and bottom-up violence. Also, the Boers are partially at fault for not all moving to Orania. No one is being killed in Orania. I don't mean "moral fault," but like, "woman getting drug without friends at a party and going home with a stranger" fault.
I'd also like to mention here that most of the genocides mentioned here had some kind of deep religious divide or involved black people. Black people aren't increasing as a percentage of the American population. The incoming Hispanics are largely Christian. The incoming Asians are Buddhist or secular. Not all diversity is equal. India has maintained a very diverse population for centuries and it was only with the invasion of Islam that genocidal violence arose.
Interesting.
One point, as far as I can understand, Boers moving to Orania would lead to more of those conditions being met (ie 4), increasing the probability of 5 & 6, and therefore an increased risk of being wiped out. So I don't quite understand your rationale or point there unless they enforced borders and were protected.
I understand that despite the “analysis” part of your moniker you are quite hostile to non-leftist ideas.
Despite that, I will make this assertion: in the real world, your anti-natalist desire that there be a lot fewer people in the world is incompatible with the welfare state you support.
Even if the U.S. (alone) could address the problem via mass moderate-to-high skill immigration, the rest of the developed world could not.
If you want to drastically cut back Social Security and Medicaid and convert Medicare into a voucher program, then perhaps your contracting population approach can work. And I suppose you can hope for a deus ex machina that AI will deliver such overwhelming productivity that 75%+ of the country can simply leech off the few productive folks, forever, but respectfully, hope is not a strategy.
Most modern welfare states, and definitively the one in the U.S., are quasi-Ponzi schemes that can only work with both a growing economy and an increasing number of productive citizens paying for the welfare state, and in particular for welfare for the elderly.
You can assert with elitism/eugenic/Mother Gaia-worshipping zeal that you want fewer people, but the math of the modern welfare state don’t work in your world.
anyone who obsessively reads someone they think is a dipshit has too much free time on their hands. do something better with your life -- you're signaling to me that your time is worthless and you don't respect yourself.
you have exposed yourself as my biggest hate-fan