More on Ryan Faulk and "First Worldism"
I left a few stones unturned in the last post, so I'm going to circle back and talk a little more about Ryan Faulk and his paradigm shift from white nationalism to what he calls "first worldism". Specifically, I want to turn over the following stones:
1. The "Japan argument" for WN.
2. Ryan's attempt to save face by claiming that this is a minor change in his worldview.
3. Ryan's obsession with maps and sorting.
4. The real lesson of the European revolution.
The Japan Argument
Okay, so let's start with the Japan argument for white nationalism. The argument is basically "Look at Japan. They're ethno-nationalist, and they're doing fine. Why can't we be like them?"
First, I should say that this doesn't have anything specifically to do with Ryan's former or current views, but I want to talk about it because it is one of the most persuasive arguments for white nationalism. It is empirical and pragmatic, not idealistic. If I am criticizing white nationalism as unrealistic and unpragmatic, the Japan argument seems to avoid those criticisms. However, I don't think it is a good argument for white nationalism in the current year. Let me explain why.
The Japanese don't want to flood their society with foreigners. They want to keep Japan Japanese for the forseeable future. Generally speaking, the Japanese do not think they have a moral imperative to allow millions of foreigners to live in their country for humanitarian reasons. They don't think diversity would make them stronger. They have a healthy sense of collective identity. They celebrate themselves, without hating on others (most of the time).
Of course, that wasn't always the case. In recent history the Japanese had a much more aggressive form of nationalism, one that resembled Nazism in many ways. Partly because they were defeated in WW2, and partly because they are no longer hungry, Japanese nationalism has transformed into a "live and let live" attitude, which is (I think) the ideal kind of nationalism if we want global peace and prosperity.
The current form of Japanese nationalism is more of a historical accident than a consequence of ideology. Japanese nationalism is mostly just implicit conservatism: a defense of the status quo because it is the status quo, not because it fits some ideological template. To put it simply, Japanese nationalism is conservative, not reactionary.
The Japanese aren't obsessed with Japaneseness in the way that white nationalists in the US are obsessed with the white race. It isn't the crux of their worldviews. It is mostly just an unexamined assumption -- part of the background mish-mash of their culture. Japanese culture (as far as I can tell) has no central organizing principle. It is not systematic. It a mish-mash of various things that fit together because they grew together. This mish-mash is accepted and defended because it is the status quo and seems to work. That is the ideal for conservatism: an emergent system that no one understands, but everyone accepts and defends simply because it exists and it seems to work.
There is a big difference between defending a status quo and trying to bring about a revolution. Reactionaries are revolutionaries of the right. While left-wing revolutionaries want to go forward to a utopia, right wing revolutionaries want to go back to a golden age. Conservatives, by contrast, want to maintain the status quo. In the modern West, white nationalism is reactionary, not conservative. It demands a radical transformation of society and culture. The West could have preserved its demographic status quo if it had adopted low immigration policies 50, 40, 30, or maybe even 20 years ago. Now it is way too late. Even if the borders were closed tomorrow, the white majority is projected to fade away due to low birth rates, and certainly the people living in the West will mix and mingle so that the existing racial categories will also fade away. Like it or not, the West has embarked on a huge social experiment, and it is too late to simply go back.
So, you cannot equate conservative Japanese nationalism with reactionary white nationalism in the West. They differ in their memetic structure (traditions vs. ideology) and in the policies they require. One is conservative, the other reactionary.
Also, all is not rosy in Japan. They have ultra-low fertility, a stagnant economy, and high levels of social alienation. Japanese conservatism is not sufficient to solve the problems of modernity. Conservatism can only defend a status quo. It doesn't generate progress and it can't dig us out of a mess.
On to the next stone.
Ryan's Face-Saving
Imagine that you are a Christian who goes to church every Sunday to listen to riveting sermons about Christianity by an eloquent pastor. After every sermon you walk out of the Church with your faith in Christ reaffirmed. Then, one day, with no warning, the pastor begins his sermon by saying "I am an atheist". He gives a sermon on the reasons why Christianity is wrong and stupid, why God doesn't exist, etc. Then he says "See you next week". You would probably be more than just shocked by this turn of events. You would be pissed off.
Ryan pulled that kind of stunt on his WN followers. He didn't apologize for being wrong, and he even tried to pretend that this is a minor change in his worldview. This is total bullshit. White nationalism was the crux of Ryan's worldview for years. The white race was his core value. His understanding of race and human nature may not have changed all that much, but he abandoned the core value of his worldview. His race realist views were selected and shaped by that core value. He was primarily an advocate, and only secondarily a truth-seeker. Ryan presented his views within the conceptual framework of white nationalism -- within a frame that was primarily moral and justificatory, not explanatory.
Why is Ryan pretending that this is a minor change to his worldview? Probably because he doesn't want to admit that his white nationalism was essentially a religious belief. Ryan's online career was largely based on pulling down false idols of the left, such as the belief that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan has often criticized opposing views as being religious dogma. For example, he used the term "race creationism" to describe the dogmatic assumption that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan is often very critical of atheists for having beliefs that are based on faith and off-limits to reason. I'm sure he doesn't want to admit that some of his beliefs were also faith-based assumptions.
Ryan's Obsession with Maps and Sorting
This is speculation, but I think Ryan's obsession with maps is related to his worldview.
More than once in his videos, Ryan has mentioned that he spent a lot of time as a child looking at atlases in the library. That's an odd thing to do, even for a mildly autistic person (as Ryan has described himself). If you go through Ryan's videos (most of which are audio plus a single still image), you will find a large number in which the image is a map. Ryan really likes maps.
Maps are simple, flat, models of reality. They divide the world up into territories that have crisp boundaries. The territories are colored differently. There is a certain aesthetic appeal to maps.
Most of Ryan's political proposals involved dividing the US into separate territories and sorting people into those territories based on either race, ideology, or a combination of the two. He has put forth many such proposals. I'm not saying that Ryan has never proposed anything else (he was an ancap), but this schema is a recurring theme in Ryan's thought.
Even the concept of race is kind of like a map. Race is a "flat" concept. It simply divides humanity into a number of categories. Until recent times, races corresponded to geographic regions. Many people (especially WNs) conceptualize evolution as group conflict between races, even though that is a very misleading metaphor. (Most people don't understand evolution.)
Ryan's views of human nature, evolution, and society seem to be "flat" and map-like. I'm not saying that Ryan doesn't know that races are genetic clusters -- he does. However, a lot of his thinking about race seems to be based on other, incompatible metaphors. That is true for white nationalists in general.
The Real Lesson of the European Revolution
Ryan said that his views on white nationalism were partly undermined by the work of Gregory Clark on the causes of the Industrial Revolution. Basically, Clark argues that the Industrial Revolution was partly caused by recent eugenic selection. Ryan has taken this knowledge and somehow used it to generate yet another partitioning scheme that he calls "First Worldism". He wants to create a society based on an ideological filter that selects for a "First World" mentality.
This proposal misses the point of the European revolution. The point is that eugenics is necessary to create and maintain modern civilization. Society is not simply an expression of biology. Society also affects biology. Society depends on the genome, but the genome also depends on society. Different societies create different selective pressures on their genomes.
Sorting people into different groups in a single generation isn't enough to maintain modern civilization (which is one of Ryan's concerns). Selection must occur in every generation. To exist in the long run, a society must select for the genes that make that society possible. In other words, those who make a positive contribution to society should have more surviving offspring than those who make a negative contribution. In other other words, selection must be eugenic rather than dysgenic.
That is the lesson that we should learn from the European revolution, although really we shouldn't have to learn it at all, since it is an obvious implication of the theory of evolution. Modern civilization was created (partly) by eugenics, and it is currently being undermined (partly) by dysgenics.
1. The "Japan argument" for WN.
2. Ryan's attempt to save face by claiming that this is a minor change in his worldview.
3. Ryan's obsession with maps and sorting.
4. The real lesson of the European revolution.
The Japan Argument
Okay, so let's start with the Japan argument for white nationalism. The argument is basically "Look at Japan. They're ethno-nationalist, and they're doing fine. Why can't we be like them?"
First, I should say that this doesn't have anything specifically to do with Ryan's former or current views, but I want to talk about it because it is one of the most persuasive arguments for white nationalism. It is empirical and pragmatic, not idealistic. If I am criticizing white nationalism as unrealistic and unpragmatic, the Japan argument seems to avoid those criticisms. However, I don't think it is a good argument for white nationalism in the current year. Let me explain why.
The Japanese don't want to flood their society with foreigners. They want to keep Japan Japanese for the forseeable future. Generally speaking, the Japanese do not think they have a moral imperative to allow millions of foreigners to live in their country for humanitarian reasons. They don't think diversity would make them stronger. They have a healthy sense of collective identity. They celebrate themselves, without hating on others (most of the time).
Of course, that wasn't always the case. In recent history the Japanese had a much more aggressive form of nationalism, one that resembled Nazism in many ways. Partly because they were defeated in WW2, and partly because they are no longer hungry, Japanese nationalism has transformed into a "live and let live" attitude, which is (I think) the ideal kind of nationalism if we want global peace and prosperity.
The current form of Japanese nationalism is more of a historical accident than a consequence of ideology. Japanese nationalism is mostly just implicit conservatism: a defense of the status quo because it is the status quo, not because it fits some ideological template. To put it simply, Japanese nationalism is conservative, not reactionary.
The Japanese aren't obsessed with Japaneseness in the way that white nationalists in the US are obsessed with the white race. It isn't the crux of their worldviews. It is mostly just an unexamined assumption -- part of the background mish-mash of their culture. Japanese culture (as far as I can tell) has no central organizing principle. It is not systematic. It a mish-mash of various things that fit together because they grew together. This mish-mash is accepted and defended because it is the status quo and seems to work. That is the ideal for conservatism: an emergent system that no one understands, but everyone accepts and defends simply because it exists and it seems to work.
There is a big difference between defending a status quo and trying to bring about a revolution. Reactionaries are revolutionaries of the right. While left-wing revolutionaries want to go forward to a utopia, right wing revolutionaries want to go back to a golden age. Conservatives, by contrast, want to maintain the status quo. In the modern West, white nationalism is reactionary, not conservative. It demands a radical transformation of society and culture. The West could have preserved its demographic status quo if it had adopted low immigration policies 50, 40, 30, or maybe even 20 years ago. Now it is way too late. Even if the borders were closed tomorrow, the white majority is projected to fade away due to low birth rates, and certainly the people living in the West will mix and mingle so that the existing racial categories will also fade away. Like it or not, the West has embarked on a huge social experiment, and it is too late to simply go back.
So, you cannot equate conservative Japanese nationalism with reactionary white nationalism in the West. They differ in their memetic structure (traditions vs. ideology) and in the policies they require. One is conservative, the other reactionary.
Also, all is not rosy in Japan. They have ultra-low fertility, a stagnant economy, and high levels of social alienation. Japanese conservatism is not sufficient to solve the problems of modernity. Conservatism can only defend a status quo. It doesn't generate progress and it can't dig us out of a mess.
On to the next stone.
Ryan's Face-Saving
Imagine that you are a Christian who goes to church every Sunday to listen to riveting sermons about Christianity by an eloquent pastor. After every sermon you walk out of the Church with your faith in Christ reaffirmed. Then, one day, with no warning, the pastor begins his sermon by saying "I am an atheist". He gives a sermon on the reasons why Christianity is wrong and stupid, why God doesn't exist, etc. Then he says "See you next week". You would probably be more than just shocked by this turn of events. You would be pissed off.
Ryan pulled that kind of stunt on his WN followers. He didn't apologize for being wrong, and he even tried to pretend that this is a minor change in his worldview. This is total bullshit. White nationalism was the crux of Ryan's worldview for years. The white race was his core value. His understanding of race and human nature may not have changed all that much, but he abandoned the core value of his worldview. His race realist views were selected and shaped by that core value. He was primarily an advocate, and only secondarily a truth-seeker. Ryan presented his views within the conceptual framework of white nationalism -- within a frame that was primarily moral and justificatory, not explanatory.
Why is Ryan pretending that this is a minor change to his worldview? Probably because he doesn't want to admit that his white nationalism was essentially a religious belief. Ryan's online career was largely based on pulling down false idols of the left, such as the belief that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan has often criticized opposing views as being religious dogma. For example, he used the term "race creationism" to describe the dogmatic assumption that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan is often very critical of atheists for having beliefs that are based on faith and off-limits to reason. I'm sure he doesn't want to admit that some of his beliefs were also faith-based assumptions.
Ryan's Obsession with Maps and Sorting
This is speculation, but I think Ryan's obsession with maps is related to his worldview.
More than once in his videos, Ryan has mentioned that he spent a lot of time as a child looking at atlases in the library. That's an odd thing to do, even for a mildly autistic person (as Ryan has described himself). If you go through Ryan's videos (most of which are audio plus a single still image), you will find a large number in which the image is a map. Ryan really likes maps.
Maps are simple, flat, models of reality. They divide the world up into territories that have crisp boundaries. The territories are colored differently. There is a certain aesthetic appeal to maps.
Most of Ryan's political proposals involved dividing the US into separate territories and sorting people into those territories based on either race, ideology, or a combination of the two. He has put forth many such proposals. I'm not saying that Ryan has never proposed anything else (he was an ancap), but this schema is a recurring theme in Ryan's thought.
Even the concept of race is kind of like a map. Race is a "flat" concept. It simply divides humanity into a number of categories. Until recent times, races corresponded to geographic regions. Many people (especially WNs) conceptualize evolution as group conflict between races, even though that is a very misleading metaphor. (Most people don't understand evolution.)
Ryan's views of human nature, evolution, and society seem to be "flat" and map-like. I'm not saying that Ryan doesn't know that races are genetic clusters -- he does. However, a lot of his thinking about race seems to be based on other, incompatible metaphors. That is true for white nationalists in general.
The Real Lesson of the European Revolution
Ryan said that his views on white nationalism were partly undermined by the work of Gregory Clark on the causes of the Industrial Revolution. Basically, Clark argues that the Industrial Revolution was partly caused by recent eugenic selection. Ryan has taken this knowledge and somehow used it to generate yet another partitioning scheme that he calls "First Worldism". He wants to create a society based on an ideological filter that selects for a "First World" mentality.
This proposal misses the point of the European revolution. The point is that eugenics is necessary to create and maintain modern civilization. Society is not simply an expression of biology. Society also affects biology. Society depends on the genome, but the genome also depends on society. Different societies create different selective pressures on their genomes.
Sorting people into different groups in a single generation isn't enough to maintain modern civilization (which is one of Ryan's concerns). Selection must occur in every generation. To exist in the long run, a society must select for the genes that make that society possible. In other words, those who make a positive contribution to society should have more surviving offspring than those who make a negative contribution. In other other words, selection must be eugenic rather than dysgenic.
That is the lesson that we should learn from the European revolution, although really we shouldn't have to learn it at all, since it is an obvious implication of the theory of evolution. Modern civilization was created (partly) by eugenics, and it is currently being undermined (partly) by dysgenics.
"Basically, Clark argues that the Industrial Revolution was partly caused by recent eugenic selection."
ReplyDeleteWould you say there are significant innate differences between different European peoples in terms of behaviour? Like, this guy argues a reduction in violence and a rise in low time preference happened in Western Europe from the 16th century onwards. What about Russians or Ukrainians, renowned for their violent, careless and negligent ways? Is that mostly due to poverty and the legacy of their violent political culture, or do you think specific selective pressures are to blame? If so, what are these?
Sure, there will be differences between different populations within a race. Races are also fuzzy and somewhat arbitrary categories. There will also be differences between individuals, of course. Evolution doesn't produce uniformity.
DeleteFor example, Jews had different selective pressures than peasants, so that probably explains why they have different mental traits on average. I think the Christian white population is pretty much the same across Europe, but there are some differences. For example, the Dutch have higher average IQs. It could be that Protestants and Catholics diverged to some extent. The Catholics took a lot of smart men out of the mating game, which would tend to lower IQ and prevent intellectual progress. It's hard to know what is due to biology and what is due to cultural or social factors, because they interact and what we see is their combined effects. So yeah, the Russians and Ukrainians had lower levels of civilization and that could have selected them to less biologically 'civilized' on average. The Russian average IQ is pretty close the European average though, so it's not a huge difference.