A Perspective as Wide as the World

                          By Spencer Quinn

        

Here’s an analogy which neatly sums up the difference between Alt-Right or race-realist thinking and more mainstream conservatives. Imagine a vast pointillist painting, such as Georges Seurat’s famous A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, but a thousand times the size. Imagine also that this painting depicts scenes which present humanity as it really is and furthermore acts as a warning against the Progressive Left. At a short distance from the painting, the race-realist will certainly agree with the conservative about what dot or stroke or smudge appears where on the canvas and what color it is. Stepping further back, they may also agree on single images these elements form. But when the race realist steps even further back in order to view the painting in its entirety, he begins to recognize a cohesion between forms which was invisible up close – a cohesion which transcends the motley raw materials on the canvas. This is where the artist’s vision comes into play and the painting leaves its intended impression upon its viewer.

At this point the race realist understands that the conservative could perceive this very same vision, he just doesn’t want to. He refuses to step back far enough to view the entire canvas, and obstinately insists that a middle distance is sufficient. Without sight of the entire canvas, he feels qualified to make pronouncements on the painting’s meaning and warnings against the Left.

For example, perhaps a portion of the painting depicts the chaotic path of money from native white Americans to illegal Hispanic immigrants via the government and how that money is ultimately squandered by their recipients or sent back home to enrich Mexico. The conservative then infers from the painting that illegal immigration is bad because of such untoward economic consequences.

The race realist, from his greater distance, however, sees details in the art that the conservative missed: the inveterate brutishness and ignorance of these immigrants and the smugness and solipsism on the part of their benefactors. He sees the corruption of a once-great nation and understands that, illegal or not, the very presence of these particular immigrants, with their low IQs and less-than-civilized behavior, cannot do anything but sap the resources of their host country and hasten its decline. The race realist chooses a perspective as wide as the world by viewing the painting in terms of the biochemical and statistical truths found in genetics, psychometrics, and population biology. Such truths are the most difficult to refute. If anything, genetics is to the biological sciences what nuclear physics is to the physical sciences. You cannot get a more complete picture of life than that.

The conservative, on the other hand, draws the line at economics and political science. He prefers to downplay any hard science and instead talks up the primary role of government and capital in the ultimate state of human affairs. While most conservatives today use the Bible as a guide to interpret this multifaceted painting, the intellectual ones will turn to Burke and Hayek as their twin beacons in this regard.

Certainly, these two men wrote great things and have been excellent interpreters of this hypothetical painting for many years. However, since the breakdown of white majorities in traditionally white nations due to third-world immigration, things have gotten confused. Their descriptions and proscriptions apply less and less to the world we are currently inheriting. What would have made sense fifty years ago to conservatives is now causing a great deal of pain. A great example can be seen in the Walt Disney Company layoffs of January 2015 in which 250 American IT tech workers were let go and replaced with foreign H-1B workers, mostly from India. In fact, Disney was so brazen about it, it forced their outgoing American employees (many of whom were white) to train their foreign-born replacements. Now, from a capitalist standpoint, this all makes perfect sense. Why pay someone sixty dollars per hour when you can import foreigners who will work for half that? The company saves money, which it can then invest back into itself, thereby improving and expanding its services to its customers. Furthermore, this investment helps fuel other aspects of the economy, for example, paying builders, contractors, caterers, and many others who would be needed in case Disney wishes to add a wing to one of its buildings or a new ride to one of its amusement parks. And this is all great, when you don’t look beyond economics as the prime motivator of human behavior.

Yes, economics is an important aspect of the human condition, so there is a lot of truth and wisdom behind the ideas of Hayek and others. However, when one steps back with the race realists one realizes that Darwin and Mendel have just as much to say if not more about what makes us human. These are both canonical figures in the life sciences. So why won’t conservatives join us in our more distant perch?

My guess is that there are several reasons, one being simple inertia. It’s only been in the last thirty or so years that genetics has been uncovering hard clues about racial differences. Prior to this, it was perfectly reasonable for educated people to overestimate the role of environment in determining human intelligence and temperament. After all, genetics was a big mystery then (and still is in many ways) but environment never was. One can easily observe concrete examples of slavery, oppression, and poverty. But until recently, who could have even dreamt of observing the MAO-A gene, which produces an enzyme called monoamine oxidase that breaks down certain neurotransmitters and helps suppress impulsive behavior? (Yes, it has been shown that whites typically possess a greater number of copies of this gene than do blacks, which, if you think about it, explains a lot.) Therefore, in lieu of conclusive evidence saying otherwise, proposing that slavery, oppression, and poverty actually cause black stupidity and misbehavior and not the other way around does not seem obviously wrong. Sure, it violates ancient notions of folk wisdom, but as we all know, folk wisdom does not hold up well in the face of thousands of books and peer-reviewed papers penned by PhDs, regardless of discipline or ideological bent.

So with a long history of ignoring genetics and evolution behind them, many conservatives, out of habit, it seems, carry on this dubious tradition.

Another reason, I would think, is that letting nonwhites off the hook for their poor performance and behavior jibes better with Christian magnanimity than blaming them for it would. It is a benevolent conclusion, one that feels good to draw. So if one can go either way with the chicken or the egg and it feels better to go with the egg, then by all means go with the egg. Much of European and American conservatism comes directly from Christianity, and so it makes sense that an all-inclusive, Paulist interpretation of the data would hold sway for many of them.

This approach further insulates the conservative against sin in the event that the race realists are correct. The conservative, in the great Burkean tradition, views freedom and equal human rights as sacrosanct. Even if the races are fundamentally different (as Burke and other early conservatives were willing to accept, among classes at least), he will be quick to argue that there is nothing anyone can do about it since all men are blessed by God with ‘inalienable rights.’ Therefore, for all his scientific arguments, the race realist might as well be wrong. His conclusions have no bearing on life and cannot ever be acted upon.

Only, they can. But to do so would break with Burke and much of the New Testament, something that many conservatives raised in the Christian tradition would be loath to do. On one hand, this is a noble and highly moral outlook which does much to endear Christianity to me personally. On the other hand, it breaks my heart to see Western civilization begin to die in part due to a few narrow-minded conservatives who wish to save their souls.

The final reason for the conservative’s hesitation to join the race realist, I believe, is fear. Most on the Alt Right are fully aware of the craven attitudes shared by our erstwhile allies on the Right. Many conservatives simply do not wish to pay the high social and professional price necessary to view humanity from the race realist’s broad vantage point. This is the big reason for the ‘cuckservative’ epithet and other scorn that race realists heap on conservatives these days. Conservatives just don’t seem to the have the requisite backbone anymore for standing athwart history and crying “Stop!” By maintaining conservative principals in a multi-racial world without once invoking racial differences, conservatives will only retard the leftward march of history. For men of the Right, who dedicate their lives not just to stop this leftward surge but to reverse it, this is only slightly better than useless.

And why is there such a high price to pay to join the race realists to begin with? Why are frank assessments of racial differences completely verboten in today’s society? Opinions may differ here, but Occam’s Razor points to three main causes that I can see. First is a radical adherence to the Christian magnanimity mentioned above. One does not have to be a regular worshipper or even a believer to take the egalitarian teachings of Christ to their violent (and, to be sure, unintended) extremes. Such Christians without Christ act solely on an inherited moral reflex and strike me as a perversion on the level of zombies rising from the dead to feed on the living. Second is the general weakness of the majority of conservatives and their unwillingness to challenge the Left in its central tenet of racial equality. So, like sharks smelling blood in the water, Leftists have swarmed through our institutions and encountered only nominal opposition.

The most important reason for the ostracism of race realists, however, is the powerful influence of diaspora Jews upon the media, politics, and academia. It is an irrefutable fact that a large number of Ashkanazi Jews in the United States and in European countries have demonstrated a weakness for left-wing radical politics ever since their emancipation in the 1870s. Since left-wing politics carries with it the rejection of the three historic bugbears of Jewish diaspora life, namely, nationalism, capitalism, and Christianity, it made sense that most Jews with the will to power were drawn to the Left and were desperate to inflict leftist changes upon traditional European civilizations. And with their general low-trust tendencies and high average intelligence they were quite successful.

One does not need to be an anti-Semite to admit any of this.

Nor does one need to be an anti-Semite to recognize that influential Jews police the distance at which people are allowed to view this great painting. They would rather we not look at it all, but if we must, then viewing from a middle distance (where you can find most libertarians and conservatives) is grudgingly tolerated. To step any further back as the race realist has done is to potentially see nonwhites, including Jews, in a very unflattering light. This will not only weaken the myth of racial equality which propels the Left, but it will also, if taken seriously by enough people, put most whites back into a racial frame of mind. And when that happens, the position of Jews as diaspora is no longer secure. So, to prevent this from happening, most of our Jewish elites (Center, Left, or Right) do everything they can to discourage truth-seeking. If you play ball, you will get rewarded with plum positions or at the very least will be left alone. If you don’t, however, you will become unemployable. You will be labeled an extremist and a racist and will be shunned from society. Good citizens shall not step too far away from that painting. Good citizens shall not see that painting for what it is. Good citizens shall not inch their way towards the Truth.

This is essentially how the worldwide Jewish population double dips. As a diaspora, they are overwhelmingly anti-nationalist and anti-race-realist because it suits them. Yet as Israelis they are overwhelmingly pro-nationalist and pro-race-realist because it suits them. And, in comparison, what suits the indigenous populations of the nations over which they wield so much control is of little importance.

Again, it is not necessarily anti-Semitic say such things, just as it is not necessarily philo-Semitic to discuss the high average Jewish IQ or the high proportion of Jewish Nobel Laureates in science and mathematics. These are just honest statements of fact. It would, however, be more anti-Semitic (and perhaps less reasonable) if we were to blame only the Jews for this state of affairs. Of course, the first two reasons described above cannot easily be laid at the feet of Jews. Gentile ex-Christians have gone too far in radicalizing the egalitarianism promoted by their ancestors’ religion, and gentile conservatives have grown weak in the knees in the face of uncomfortable racial truths. Furthermore, while Jews provide much of the driving force behind today’s militant political correctness (and are certainly over-represented in this respect in terms of overall population), there are quite a few gentiles who lend their shoulders to this effort as well. There always has been. Not every decision-maker in the SPLC and ACLU are Chosen, and Ted Kennedy and Philip Hart did have their names attached to that disastrous 1965 Immigration bill.

As our population becomes less white, however, more and more whites will be forced to step away from this painting and view it with fresh eyes. They will have no choice, given that the greater presence of unruly nonwhites will make viewing this painting even from a moderate distance increasingly dangerous. Such nonwhites possess the same insecurities as the Jews but tend to be more violent and totalitarian in expressing them. As their power and confidence swells, however, these nonwhites will increase their efforts to thought-police whites into coming closer to the painting or shutting their eyes to it entirely, which is tantamount to complete submission. They will do this through threats and they will do this through violence, and they will continue to be egged on or ignored by our elites, Jewish or otherwise. In any event, a white population blinded from the Truth, unable to control its destiny, and completely denuded of its fighting spirit will not survive long.

We, of course, cannot let that happen.

Only by maintaining the broadest possible perspective from which to view this painting and by constantly reporting what we honestly see will we make the transition to the Right by other whites as seamless and as painless as possible. We will have gotten there first, which means it will fall on us to attract and not repel those who wish to follow us. We also have the Truth on our side, which always has a way of seeping through even the cleverest ideological foundations like water through cracks in a dam.

Most importantly, however, despite the tragic circumstances it depicts, this painting still portrays life in all its wonder. It is still a beautiful painting. It is still a wonderful world.