Perfectionland: Notes on Nihon

Tags

2016, 4chan, America, American Liberty, Asian, BBC, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Internet, Japan, Japanese people, japanese perfect, Jared Taylor, Multiculturalism, nihon, nippon, nippon or nihon, No to Turkey in the EU, perfect, perfection, politics, race, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, society, travel, travel report, trip report, Twitter, United States, weeaboo, weeaboo culture

I wasn’t in Japan for long – only five days – but it was enough to appreciate the essence of the place. The country, as I had expected to discover, is a marvel; remarkable, thrilling, inspiring and blessed with so many natural advantages that it leaves one feeling furiously envious. The people I met were beautiful and ultra-civilised – if also slightly robotic. The climate was milder than I expected (having previously visited unbearably humid South Korea). The natural environment (and especially the trees) I found dazzlingly attractive. And though I am not a ‘weeaboo’ by any stretch of the imagination, I did come away with a newfound appreciation for manga and J-Pop (especially the bizarre girl-group AKB48 – seriously look them up).

I have, of course, always understood the Western fetish for East Asia and for Japan in particular. The appeal of homogenous, orderly and affluent societies to those stranded in multiculturalised urban jungles is perfectly obvious. Japan is a dream of faultlessness; a magical perfectionland, where the girls are thin and pretty, the IQs are through the roof and crime and disorder are almost entirely absent. Who could fail to be attracted to that?

It is revealing that many of the leading luminaries of the Western far-right have had personal experience of Japan. The current leader of the white nationalist British National Party (BNP) Adam Walker, for example, spent many years  there teaching English to children. Jared Taylor, leader of the neo-segregationist website American Renaissance, also spent many years living in the country and speaks the language fluently. This makes a lot of sense to me.

A Western citizen exposed to Japan for a considerable period of time will inevitably come to resent the fact that his or her own country has gone down such a different, self-destructive path. Why can’t England be like Japan? Why can’t London be like Tokyo? Exposure to Japan can by itself turn a liberal into a reactionary.

Of course, there is no new shift in policy available to us that can make England into Japan or London into Tokyo, and any effort to bring such changes about will be a failure (and a bloody one at that). This is because Japan has dodged the bullet of decline for reasons that are inherently Japanese.

First, Japan has always been insular. Indeed, prior to the Meiji restoration, Japan maintained the strictest policy of cultural isolation in human history, even at times forbidding its citizenry the right to leave the archipelago on pain of death. Second, Japanese people are, on average, smarter than Europeans by two to three IQ points. This is not an insignificant difference and it has real-world consequences. Finally, Japanese men have lower levels of testosterone than Europeans, meaning that libertinism, crimes of aggression (and increasingly even reproduction) are much rarer there than in other parts of the world.

Given that Europeans cannot become Japanese simply by changing national policy, those who (like Jared Taylor and Adam Walker) dream of importing Japanese advantages into the West are sadly deluded. The best we can do is envy them quietly and try not to get too depressed.

D, LDN

Advertisement

How Real is Race?

Tags

Amren, Anti-Racist is a Code word for Anti-White, Franz Boas, Freud, Hispanics, Is race real, Jared Taylor, Liberal conservatism, Middle-ground, Race realism, Social construct, VDare

Regarded as toxic, unnecessary and destined to cause more harm by its investigation than benefit, no scientific subject is more reliably controversial than race.

I am not a racist and have no racial agenda to advance. Nevertheless, I find the denial of racial difference extremely injurious to human understanding. It is surely worthwhile to learn about and understand our collective past and also the deviations we took as a species to arrive at our current variety.

Such a grand treasure of facts should not be abandoned to the politicised black-market of the underworld. We are more than capable of discussing these things in a civilised manner, and so let’s do that here.

How real is race? A simple question with a complicated answer.

The Left-wing line on racial difference hasn’t changed in more than 50 years. Liberals maintain that what we call ‘race’ is merely a ‘social construct’ – that is, an invented system no more meaningful than class, language or nationality. By this reckoning, the notion of a black race is no more legitimate or scientific than a blue-eyed, brown-eyed or left-handed race. (Note that ‘Race’ to these folk, is almost synonymous with colour and has no deeper implications).

Over time, the Left-wing view has become dominant in Western society. No politician could be elected having questioned the dogma of ‘we’re all the same underneath’. The mainstream ‘right’ is thereby just as wedded to the concept as the Left.

To find the contrary view, we must go to the far or extreme right. There, people hold the view (in agreement with the majority of scientists) that race is not only real, more than skin-deep and scientifically viable, but also immensely important as a tool of explanation. They argue that a country like Uganda is less developed than Japan for primarily biological reasons. They reject the notion of innate, inborn human equality as little more than wishful thinking. And they view multiracial societies like those of the US and UK as wrong-headed utopian experiments that can only end by robbing the White peoples of their hard-won evolutionary advantages.

My view? Well, in the cartoonish way I’ve described the matter, I lean strongly toward the latter interpretation. I do believe race is real and that biology can explain things like behaviour and intelligence – perhaps not completely, but reliably enough to provide a guiding rule.

Nevertheless, the Left-wing argument is not wholly wrong and deserves more consideration than ethno-nationalists seem willing to grant it. There plainly are ‘races’ with a socially constructed basis. The surreal American conception of ‘black’ (one drop of African blood makes you fully African) is a social construct, for example. A black man in America might be a White man in Brazil and vice versa. The Arab and Hispanic ‘races’ are also social constructs (both Arabs and Hispanics are heterogeneous categories defined only by language).  Japanese and Koreans are so genetically similar that the hostility between them has a mostly social basis. The treatment of Jews and Arabs as ‘White’ Caucasians on the American census is a social decision. The demented division of White Europeans into Alpines, Nordics and Mediterraneans by Madison Grant similarly represents a product of human bias more than scientific reality.

Thus, the race as social construct idea is not as wholly wrong as we might regard it at face value.

Of course, the reason we might feel inclined to disregard it likely arises from the way the theory is used by our opponents. To take the commonsensical points I have conceded and use them to argue that nothing biological separates a Black African from a Swede is simply crazy. A great deal of evolutionary difference separates them and has supplied them both with very different characteristics.

There is much to be fascinated with in racial science. The athletic superiority of black people, the apparent inclination of East Asians to obedience and feelings of shame, the religiosity of the Semites, the efficiency of the Nordics, the romanticism of the Latin peoples etc… All of these phenomena can (potentially) be explained scientifically. I for one would think it a shame if we shied away from doing so.

D, LDN.

James Watson: A Modern Alan Turing.

Tags

Amren, Auction, Bell Curve, Bell Curve controversy, Civilisation, Controversy, Correct, IQ, James Watson, James Watson Racist, Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Nobel Prize, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Race and intelligence, racism, VDare, Watson

James Watson, the genius who – with Francis Crick – discovered the structure of DNA, has fallen on hard times. Ostracised for his comments on race and intelligence many years ago, the distinguished scientist has now felt the need to auction his Nobel Prize medal to the highest bidder.

Some have greeted this pitiful news with heartless derision:

“This sounds awful” –  wrote Adam Rutherford in the Guardian –  “…an 86-year-old hero ostracised for his views, shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow…. But it’s not awful. Watson has said that he is “not a racist in a conventional way”. But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. Call me old-fashioned, but that sounds like bog-standard, run-of-the-mill racism to me.”

No sympathy there then. Rutherford’s twisted viewpoint is repeated across the spectrum of the uninformed mainstream. It is only outside of this spectrum that the matter is seen for what it is – an unambiguous tragedy and a disgrace to science.

A man who has done more than anyone alive to aid humanity’s understanding of itself; a man whose invention and wit upgraded the field of science, exposed the hidden potential of medicine and stirred the imagination of a million minds is reduced to near-penury simply for holding an unfashionable opinion.

Watson reminds me of nobody more than the British code-cracker Alan Turing who, after breaking the enigma code of the Nazis and thus enabling the defeat of fascism, was cast out to the margins of society by his ungrateful country for being homosexual. (Turing later committed suicide by biting into an apple injected with cyanide).

The Left adores Turing and so he is wildly (and rightly) venerated. Watson annoyed the Left and so he is ostracised. That says a lot about which political wing is currently dominant over academia, doesn’t it?

And is Watson actually wrong? Surely that is the most central and vital thing to consider. Here is the statement that got him into this mess:

“I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours —whereas all the testing says not really… people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

This (admittedly clumsy) statement is far from ‘hateful’. It is grounded in fact by a crushing weight of experiment and analysis. Here is an excerpt from the book-length study of the subject ‘The Bell Curve’:

“Ethnic differences in measured cognitive ability have been found since intelligent tests were invented. The battle over the meaning of these differences is largely responsible for today’s controversy over intelligence testing itself…There are differences between races, and they are the rule, not the exception… External evidence of bias (in IQ tests) has been sought in hundreds of studies…Overwhelmingly, the evidence is that the major standardized tests used to help make school and job decisions do not underpredict black performance, nor does the expert community find any other general or systematic difference in the predictive accuracy of tests for blacks and whites.”

Those who would call James Watson ‘ignorant’ are themselves ignorant, and those ‘scientists’ who back these catcalls should not be considered scientists at all.

D, LDN.

A Question for Egalitarians.

Tags

A Troublesome Inheritance, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Detroit, Egalitarianism, Freedom of speech, Jared Diamond, Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Marxism, Nicholas Wade, Race and Genetics, Race and intelligence

In the educated quarters of the United States, a new book about race is causing quite a stir. It’s called ‘A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History’ and was penned by NYT science correspondent Nicholas Wade. In the book Wade argues that race – contrary to liberal consensus – is not a ‘construct’ but a biological fact, and that because of this, average levels of intelligence (as well as various aspects of personality) vary between ethnic groups.

The ‘controversy’ here is of course unwarranted. The findings of modern science almost always suggest ethnic disparities in cognitive ability exist and are severe enough to have political and economic consequences. 

But if you’re still unconvinced, Wade may be of some help to you. I also came up with a nice thought experiment today which may help our side of the argument albeit in a less scientific manner.

If you’re an egalitarian – a Communist of some kind perhaps – and have stumbled upon this horrible, fascist, racist blog by accident, please don’t go before you read and consider the following:

Imagine if sixteen years ago, a South Korean family adopted a Nigerian boy at birth, and then, two weeks later, adopted a Korean boy, also at birth.

The two 16 yr old brothers have grown up eating the same food, and have enjoyed the same amount of exercise. Both also attended the same schools, and were raised by the same stable and complete family.

For a reason we don’t have to go into, the two brothers are entered into a head-to-head IQ contest, and you are obliged by law to bet money on the outcome.

The money you bet with isn’t your own though. In fact, it is the total UN aid budget for Africa for the next ten years. If you lose or decline to take part, the money will be redirected into the bank account of Rush Limbaugh.

Who would go for and why? This direct confrontation between conscience and ideology makes for an interesting dilemma. The answers will be revealing.

D, LDN.