Some people have difficulties understanding the appeal of race-realism/H.B.D. They see the statistics we cite and they reply, “there are lies, damn lies and statistics.” They hear the stories we tell and they reply, “so you got mugged. Big deal; there have always been rough neighborhoods.” They see the science books we read and they reply, “your science is not science; it is pseudo-science. Our scientists are more numerous and they have already refuted your scientists.” They read the same newspapers we read and they reply, “the news is distorted to depict blacks and Hispanics in a bad light. Besides, their high crime rates are due to poverty and persecution.”
But more realistically, they will see neither the statistics, our stories, the science or the anecdotal evidence. Breaking taboos is not easy. But, for the few who struggle with the issue and truly want to know what we base our convictions upon, here is a brief explanation:
Yes, statistics can lie – but they are probably telling the truth when they agree with our everyday observations. Yes, our own experiences might be the exception – but they are probably representative of a wider reality when they are similar to the experiences of thousands of others. Yes, the science might be flawed – but it is probably valid when it goes hand in hand with the reality on the ground and when it persists despite powerful political forces that conspire to silence it. Yes, news stories can be biased – but when they are consistent around the world and across cultures there is probably something to be learned from them.
To make this easier to understand, I have compiled a couple of tables. Here is our table:
Here is the establishment table:
Would it be true to say that people in general find comfort in believing in unfounded fluffy theories, basically an escape from the real world.
Take religion for example, scientificaly there is not one shred of evidence in support of any religion, yet people believe, religiously that they are off to some sort of lovely theme park in the sky just after death.
Egalitarianism is like any religion in that it doesn’t require any real proof.
Instead it whispers sweet lullabies to cuddle ones conscience.
Thanks for the laugh. Made my day!
I’m more of a cultural realist than a race realist. It is the culture that one grows up in and values that are instilled in them as well as their environment and socialization that determine their behavior, not their genetic make-up.
The leafcutter ant slices off pieces of leafs and carries them back to the nest to be used as a compost for cultivating a particular kind of fungus which it eats.
its other duties include the folding and stitching leaves together in order to create a new nest, feeding the queen and caring for the eggs and larvae.
Since the ant has never had any sort of formal training on how to do any of these complex duites we can then safely assume that the ants behaviour has been pre-determinded in its genetic code.
A culture is mainly direct reflection of a peoples genetically determinded behaviour.
Being an Ethnic realists (HED) is better than being a cultural egalitarian.
Your next step is to realize that genes and culture work together in a system.
@ Gay State Girl
I believe that both culture and race have a huge impact on a person’s life and their belief systems. A strong genetic make-up allows a race to enjoy a strong culture. Without it, there would be little “culture” to speak of. However, as you have rightly pointed out, it’s one’s culture that determines one’s morality and hence one’s actions.
In other words, I believe that race realism includes cultural realism.
Racial egalitarianism (aka liberalism) is an ideology. It’s a set of beliefs which are beyond scientific debate to the true believer. Liberals reinterpret reality in order to reinforce their own beliefs. This is so despite the disasters caused by liberalism. For example, the fact that virtually every post-colonial African country turned into a black-run debacle, despite “majority rule” and the rest of the liberal formulae being implemented, goes by the boards. Instead, liberals took their jihad to Rhodesia and South Africa, utterly wrecking those countries, then patting themselves on the back for ending “racing” and “colonialism.”
The thing about race realism is that it provides an explanation of what is happening in the real world. One can look at, say, black behavior in Africa or in the New World and see common patterns. Now, it just may be there are other factors at work here, as well as genetic coding: environment, culture, religion, demagogic leaders, whatever. Yet the mere fact that liberals spend so much time denouncing race ought to give any thinking person the reason to consider it all the more as a central factor.
What makes liberalism so insidious is that taken to its logical conclusion, it means the subjugation of the White-Western world by the masses of the third world who are, after, the majority. Of course, liberals reinterpret what used to be called the Decline of the West according to ideology:
The replacement of a White-Western government in Rhodesia by a Marxist terrorism regime? A victory for majority rule!
The mass migration of third world populaces into the heartland of Europe? The spread of diversity and tolerance!
The surrender of America’s inner cities to gangs and mass illegitimacy? An opportunity to bring the blessings of the welfare state!
The rampaging of jihadist mobs in the streets of Paris? No problem, it’s youth fighting against racism!
The thing is, since liberalism is an ideology, the question for race realists is this: How does one break an ideology?
What are the historical examples? How has liberalism been countered in the real world? What are successes that can be emulated?
Once the ideology is discredited, the collapse of liberal policies will follow.
Great post and nice visual aids with the tables 🙂
I find it helpful to ask deniers if they happen to be creationists. Once the issue gets framed in terms of evolution & selection pressures in different environments or cultures it gets harder for them to explain why they disagree – in theory.
*** Our scientists are more numerous and they have already refuted your scientists….the news is distorted to depict blacks and Hispanics in a bad light.” ***
It’s nice to be able to refer people to this study which shows the opposite to be the case.
The argument is actually more fundamental.
Social liberalism intends to make everyone equal, that is its goal. It fully realizes the differences in capability and attributes of populations and it seeks to eliminate them.
Social liberals attempt to use science(among other things) to create a facade of racial equality in an attempt to achieve their goals of eliminating difference.
Only the morons that act as foot soldiers actually believe in racial egalitarianism.