Stumpside Chats #23
Should you be prejudiced? [Oct 25, 2024]
Racial awareness is probably the dividing line between the RW and the Alt-Lite. You can be Christian, Pagan, or atheist and still be considered RW. You can be a Laissez-faire free market economist or a Nationalist Socialist and still be RW. Feudalist or Fascist. Etc. etc.
It doesn’t really even matter what exactly you want to do about the racial question either. You can be a TND hardliner or advocate for repatriation/deportation and still have more in common with each other than you will Alt-Liters.
But you can’t “cuck on the race pill” as they say. And this causes a lot of tension between the various camps of the RW and the various camps of the Alt-Lite. NeoCons think being racist means you’re a federal agent. Grifters are obviously only in it for the money/fame so they don’t really care. The post-liberal “Right Wingers” still generally subscribe to the “One race, the HUMAN RACE!!!!” mantra that is so tired now. For some of those, like Walt Bismarck, that means importing billions of “high caste Brahmin tech bros” or something retarded like that.
Regardless of the different rationale each sub-group has, they all generally get annoyed/angry if you say that perhaps we should not let brown people into the country by the millions?
Is that annoyance/anger justified though? Are we really wrong for being HECKING RACIST!!1!1!!!!!1! Short answer: no.
My iFunny OGs will remember my breakout politics textpost (the famous “Melting Pot Post") where I argue that non-White immigration is a historical oddity in America and demonstrate some of the erm… redpilled… takes of our forefathers on the subject. I’ve since reuploaded an expanded version to Substack,1 which I would recommend that you go read if you haven’t already, since I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said in regard to the historical component of “racism.”
Similarly, I have also posted a Substack article defining, asserting, and defending the reality of the race-IQ correlation explained from a genetic perspective.2 You should probably also read this for good pasta but also because it is important to understand if you are going to redpill normies, since I will not be repeating that here either.
Aside from the historical/genetic arguments (which are rarely even known by normies, let alone mentioned) there is also the moral argument.
Often times you hear people say “Not all X are Y” or that they know a “based black guy” and so you shouldn’t be racist or something. What they are essentially arguing is that you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover because it would be mean since you might be wrong, even if black people really are more stupid and violent on average.
And yeah there are plenty of cool black dudes and so on. I’ve had a lot of non-White friends in my life, including a Jewish guy from Florida who spent the weekend at my house a few years back. But the fact of the matter is that more often than not they are not cool.
Now, I should say that if someone is making that argument you probably just can’t change their mind. They aren’t open to the possibility that you could be right, and you’re essentially arguing against a strawman they have in their head where all black people in the country are exactly like their “based black guy” friend.
Regardless, the issue here is that the “based black guy” is statistically extremely rare, and if you do manage to find one they are still likely to be less trusting of you and to display significant in-group preference.
But what’s more important is that you can’t know if some random black guy is going to be a “based Republican” or just another of the 14% on a societal level. You need to at least see how the guy acts to be able to tell, and even then they could just be covering it up. Or, you can rely on statistics that indicate that the guy is probably a violent criminal even though you don’t have any data particular to him as an individual.
In one of the increasingly common instances of a mainstream RW pundit being possessed by the eternal Geist of the White Boy oversoul, Matt Walsh made a video a year ago talking about this on an individual level.
Walsh didn’t actually know if the black teens at this gas station were thugs or if perhaps they were actually med school students getting some energy drinks for a late night study session. But they probably weren’t med school students (see racial IQ post) and they were probably thugs.
On a societal level you essentially have two options: non-Whites should be treated the exact same as White people, or non-Whites should be treated as statistically necessary (that is to say, don’t let in a bunch of Somalis because they are probably all rapists). Obviously, we do the former in America.
But is this correct? Obviously not. Black people are still disproportionately violent, non-Whites still have a lower average IQ, etc. etc. These are, by all objective measures, not demographics you want to import by the millions.
But again, what if this is mean? What about the wholesome “conservative” BIPOC that wouldn’t be let in to the country if we banned all Somalis for being rapists and pedophiles? At that point, we have to apply the logic Walsh uses in his video (on an individual level) on a societal level. We have to go back to the historical norm (see the Melting Pot post) of assuming non-Whites would not make good citizens, and therefore restricting immigration. Essentially, black people would be assumed to be violent criminal because so many of them actually are.
Yes, the “based black guy” you know would have a hard to getting in to the country, but also it is not necessarily impossible since there would still be provisions for meritorious non-Whites to immigrate.
I think we are all in agreement that non-Whites are just not good citizens, on average. On some level, a large amount of normies even understand this. So if we assume that they make poor citizens, but that it would be unethical to deport them/restrict their immigration, the question then becomes would it be more unethical to do nothing?
On a policy level, it’s simply impossible to look at each individual non-White and decide if they are up to par. It would just be too much work. So we have to use statistics to inform policy on this subject, and statistically they are not looking too good. It’s essentially all or nothing.
Think of it this way: if we know that Somalis will rape people or that Haitians will eat our pets/wildlife and be disgusting, is it ethical to let them in to our country in mass quantities? Does this ethical burden outweigh the burden imposed by barring the relatively few “good” Somalis/Haitians from entering the country?
Alternatively, you can think about it using the “social harm” concept in US legal theory. In most jurisdictions, you can invoke certain defenses (namely necessity [it was necessary for me to break in to the log cabin so that I don’t freeze to death] and self-defense [it was necessary for me to shoot the robber so that he did not kill me first]) under the condition that whatever crime you end up committing outweighs the social harm that would be caused had you not committed that crime.
Essentially, it’s ok to shoot a robber who is trying to kill you because he is a danger to society and killing him causes less social harm than him killing you. Applying it in this context, it is ok to heavily restrict immigration of certain ethnic groups because you know most of them are bad apples, since preventing all of these Somali rapists from raping Americans obviously ethically outweighs the harm caused by making it harder for the relatively few “good” Somalis into the country.
This is essentially what politics is: making decisions based on what is practical, not what is ideal.
To tie it back in to the original question of “should you be prejudiced?” (which I think Matt Walsh makes a good argument for, even though he wants to say it isn’t racist), the answer depends on you.
Is being a meanie racist worth living in a nice, high-trust, low-crime society with a similar culture?