The Apostasy of Ryan Faulk
I am a race realist. In other words, I believe that race is a meaningful and useful way of categorizing human genetic variation, and that race differences in social outcomes, such as income and crime, are largely or wholly due to genetic differences.
Race realism is often associated with racial nationalism, racism, and white supremacy, both in myth and reality. Leftists will scream "racist" at anyone who has race realist views. On the other hand, such views are often used to justify racial nationalism or racial hatred. In both cases, there is a leap of logic. Race realism does not imply racial nationalism or race hatred. I don't hate people of other races, and I am not a white nationalist or a racial separatist. Race is relevant to political and social issues, but in a complex way.
Ryan Faulk is a well-known race realist who also was, until recently, a white nationalist. He has been a racial nationalist for at least 5 years, as far as I know. He has been fairly influential in heretical right wing circles over the years, including the alt-right. I subscribed to Ryan Faulk on YouTube in early 2013, back when he was known as "Fringe Elements". He was best known for his videos on race realism, but he had previously been an anarcho-capitalist. At the time I subscribed, he was no longer an ancap, or at least he had abandoned that ideology as his main focus, and was moving toward racial nationalism as the crux of his worldview.
In 2014 I made a reply video to Ryan on the topic of white nationalism and why white racial solidarity was so elusive. I explained that your race is not your in-group, and so one would not expect whites to display racial solidarity or racial altruism. Ryan did not respond to my video. but some of his followers engaged me in debates in the comments section. The text of the video is here.
A few days ago Ryan uploaded a video in which he announced that he was abandoning white nationalism and racial separatism as political goals, and more importantly, as core values. (I am paraphrasing.) He stated that white racial solidarity doesn't exist, or at least it not sufficient to base a political movement on. He stated that the political conflict in the US today is mainly ideological in nature, not racial, and that his side in that conflict had many white enemies and some non-white allies. I won't try to summarize the whole video.
There were, in fact, two videos. He uploaded one version, took it down, and then uploaded a second version, which is here. The first version is (or was when I wrote this) still up on bitchute here.
So, more than four years after I told him that racial solidarity is not implied by evolutionary theory, and does not generally exist, he seems to have arrived at a similar conclusion. If I had persuaded him 4 years ago, he wouldn't have spent those 4 years marching down an ideological dead end with a herd of followers. On the other hand, if I had persuaded him 4 years ago, he might be much less popular today. Herds like simple answers. The mass appeal of white nationalism is limited, but it appeals strongly to a small percentage of the population. That small percentage is large in absolute terms, probably approaching a million people in the US. Appealing to that fringe is a good way to build up an audience.
Why did Ryan abandon the ideology that motivated him for years? I think these are the main reasons:
1. By researching race realism, he developed a better understanding of human nature and race, and that new understanding didn't fit into a race-centric paradigm. Race plays a very minor role in biology, and racial conflict plays a minor role in history.
2. He observed the dumpster fire of the alt-right and white nationalism. He saw that white nationalism in practice tended to degenerate into something completely retarded. If that's what "white racial solidarity" looks like, he didn't want it.
3. He observed that white nationalism has limited appeal. It isn't an innate predisposition that is being suppressed and merely needs to be brought out. He saw that intelligent people could be exposed to white nationalist ideas, have no moral fear of them, and yet still reject them. This conflicted with his assumption that racial nationalism is an innate component of human nature.
4. He recognized that white nationalism would not solve many of the problems that he cared about. He also saw that he would rather associate with right-wing people of other races than left-wing people of his own race. He discovered that sometimes it makes more sense to treat people as individuals, rather than as instances of racial categories.
5. He understood that white nationalism is not politically pragmatic in the US in the current year. He saw that modern politics is a left | right ideological conflict in which race is a side issue (although relevant). He saw that the conflict was between mostly white ideological tribes, even though people of other races tended to be on one side.
Basically, I think Ryan gradually persuaded himself, through a combination of evidence and thought, that racial nationalism was flawed. He discovered that it isn't realistic or pragmatic. I think his views were slowly tipping away from racial nationalism, and at some point he went through a paradigm shift to a new ideology, which he calls "First Worldism".
Although he didn't clearly articulate his new view of race, I think he has abandoned the core error of racial nationalism: the idea that your race is your natural in-group. The main error of racial nationalism is a confusion between race and society. Racial nationalists presume that your race is your "real" society, while the current society that you live in, the one in which you earn your living and buy your groceries, is a kind of fiction. The racial nationalists (yes, I am generalizing, but not too much) view race as a superorganism and the individual as a cell in that organism. In this view, the purpose of the individual is to perpetuate the racial collective. Racial nationalists tend to view history and politics through the lens of racial conflict. This forces them to believe various conspiracy theories (such as "It's the JOOOOS!!!!") to explain the existence of conflict within their race, and also the persistent absence of racial solidarity. Of course, the real reason why humans don't behave as if they were cells in a racial superorganism is that they aren't cells in a racial superorganism.
Hopefully, Ryan has figured this out, at least to some extent. At this point, he really ought to eat a large slice of humble pie, apologize to his followers for leading them astray, and take some time to rethink his worldview. However, I don't expect that to happen. I expect Ryan will charge headlong into another ill-conceived ideology, although perhaps a better one.
I'll keep following Ryan and see how his worldview develops as time goes on. And I'll keep being right :)
Race realism is often associated with racial nationalism, racism, and white supremacy, both in myth and reality. Leftists will scream "racist" at anyone who has race realist views. On the other hand, such views are often used to justify racial nationalism or racial hatred. In both cases, there is a leap of logic. Race realism does not imply racial nationalism or race hatred. I don't hate people of other races, and I am not a white nationalist or a racial separatist. Race is relevant to political and social issues, but in a complex way.
Ryan Faulk is a well-known race realist who also was, until recently, a white nationalist. He has been a racial nationalist for at least 5 years, as far as I know. He has been fairly influential in heretical right wing circles over the years, including the alt-right. I subscribed to Ryan Faulk on YouTube in early 2013, back when he was known as "Fringe Elements". He was best known for his videos on race realism, but he had previously been an anarcho-capitalist. At the time I subscribed, he was no longer an ancap, or at least he had abandoned that ideology as his main focus, and was moving toward racial nationalism as the crux of his worldview.
In 2014 I made a reply video to Ryan on the topic of white nationalism and why white racial solidarity was so elusive. I explained that your race is not your in-group, and so one would not expect whites to display racial solidarity or racial altruism. Ryan did not respond to my video. but some of his followers engaged me in debates in the comments section. The text of the video is here.
A few days ago Ryan uploaded a video in which he announced that he was abandoning white nationalism and racial separatism as political goals, and more importantly, as core values. (I am paraphrasing.) He stated that white racial solidarity doesn't exist, or at least it not sufficient to base a political movement on. He stated that the political conflict in the US today is mainly ideological in nature, not racial, and that his side in that conflict had many white enemies and some non-white allies. I won't try to summarize the whole video.
There were, in fact, two videos. He uploaded one version, took it down, and then uploaded a second version, which is here. The first version is (or was when I wrote this) still up on bitchute here.
So, more than four years after I told him that racial solidarity is not implied by evolutionary theory, and does not generally exist, he seems to have arrived at a similar conclusion. If I had persuaded him 4 years ago, he wouldn't have spent those 4 years marching down an ideological dead end with a herd of followers. On the other hand, if I had persuaded him 4 years ago, he might be much less popular today. Herds like simple answers. The mass appeal of white nationalism is limited, but it appeals strongly to a small percentage of the population. That small percentage is large in absolute terms, probably approaching a million people in the US. Appealing to that fringe is a good way to build up an audience.
Why did Ryan abandon the ideology that motivated him for years? I think these are the main reasons:
1. By researching race realism, he developed a better understanding of human nature and race, and that new understanding didn't fit into a race-centric paradigm. Race plays a very minor role in biology, and racial conflict plays a minor role in history.
2. He observed the dumpster fire of the alt-right and white nationalism. He saw that white nationalism in practice tended to degenerate into something completely retarded. If that's what "white racial solidarity" looks like, he didn't want it.
3. He observed that white nationalism has limited appeal. It isn't an innate predisposition that is being suppressed and merely needs to be brought out. He saw that intelligent people could be exposed to white nationalist ideas, have no moral fear of them, and yet still reject them. This conflicted with his assumption that racial nationalism is an innate component of human nature.
4. He recognized that white nationalism would not solve many of the problems that he cared about. He also saw that he would rather associate with right-wing people of other races than left-wing people of his own race. He discovered that sometimes it makes more sense to treat people as individuals, rather than as instances of racial categories.
5. He understood that white nationalism is not politically pragmatic in the US in the current year. He saw that modern politics is a left | right ideological conflict in which race is a side issue (although relevant). He saw that the conflict was between mostly white ideological tribes, even though people of other races tended to be on one side.
Basically, I think Ryan gradually persuaded himself, through a combination of evidence and thought, that racial nationalism was flawed. He discovered that it isn't realistic or pragmatic. I think his views were slowly tipping away from racial nationalism, and at some point he went through a paradigm shift to a new ideology, which he calls "First Worldism".
Although he didn't clearly articulate his new view of race, I think he has abandoned the core error of racial nationalism: the idea that your race is your natural in-group. The main error of racial nationalism is a confusion between race and society. Racial nationalists presume that your race is your "real" society, while the current society that you live in, the one in which you earn your living and buy your groceries, is a kind of fiction. The racial nationalists (yes, I am generalizing, but not too much) view race as a superorganism and the individual as a cell in that organism. In this view, the purpose of the individual is to perpetuate the racial collective. Racial nationalists tend to view history and politics through the lens of racial conflict. This forces them to believe various conspiracy theories (such as "It's the JOOOOS!!!!") to explain the existence of conflict within their race, and also the persistent absence of racial solidarity. Of course, the real reason why humans don't behave as if they were cells in a racial superorganism is that they aren't cells in a racial superorganism.
Hopefully, Ryan has figured this out, at least to some extent. At this point, he really ought to eat a large slice of humble pie, apologize to his followers for leading them astray, and take some time to rethink his worldview. However, I don't expect that to happen. I expect Ryan will charge headlong into another ill-conceived ideology, although perhaps a better one.
I'll keep following Ryan and see how his worldview develops as time goes on. And I'll keep being right :)
Individuals tend to prioritize what is best for those closest to them - their family. The root of this is the biological similarity of family members. However, this can be hijacked by non biologically similar people entering the social family - through adoption (referring not just to the practice of taking in kids). The basis, however, of the family remains in the genetic similarity. Similarly, on a broader scale, the (or a, depending on how you look at it) basis of society is genetic similarity/form - what we call race or ethnicity.
ReplyDeleteWhite identity may not be the first instinct everyone will revert to; however, it is quite clear that the American identity is 'default' enough, and it could be argued that Whiteness is intrinsic to this identity. I say it is 'default' enough because in my experience, it is a level of group that pre-rational children will agree to value without argumentation (from my own experience). Every other White group has a similar basis, in their ethnic group (likely even stronger identity than the American one). If White nationalism meant one nation for all Whites, it was silly from the beginning, but I don't take it that is what most White nationalists want.
People don't prioritize family because of genetic similarity. People prioritize family (especially children) because people are reproducing machines. Family members aren't that much more similar, on average, than other people. They can be less similar.
DeleteSee: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/05/does-evolutionary-theory-imply-genetic.html
And no, the basis of society is not genetic similarity. It is cooperation.
See: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2014/04/family-and-society.html
Also: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2014/07/game-theory-and-society.html
Your ideology is based on misconceptions about biology and society.
It is not so much misconceptions, as viewing the same data through a different lens than you. Your positions on the same topic are controversial to experts, and are not any more evidenced than other positions; presenting your position as the truth, when it is not, is dishonest.
DeleteYour first point it totally irrelevant. Yes, we are reproducing machines, we want to reproduce our genes; the way we do this is partly by helping those with our genes, which is why we help the family. It absolutely cannot be denied that immediate family is closer genetically; on the level of extended family, it is true that this similarity quickly tapers off, those historically this is checked by inbreeding.
No, they are misconceptions. My positions are backed up by evidence and argument. If any "expert" wants to debate them, I'd be more than happy to do that.
DeleteYou have demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. E.g. family has almost nothing to do with genetic similarity. You are about 99% genetically similar to any other person. So, if family was based on genetic similarity, then parents would care about their children only a tiny percentage more than they care about anyone else. And you would sacrifice your child to save 5 sea cucumbers, because that would be helping more copies of your genes. That is explained in "Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism?", which you obviously didn't read.
And no, my first point is very relevant, but you don't understand it. Reproduction is not "helping those with our genes", as I explained. Read the links, or don't waste my time. I've made these arguments in detail already.
"it is true that this similarity quickly tapers off, those historically this is checked by inbreeding."
No, it doesn't. You can be genetically more similar to a stranger than to your own child. You are probably confusing relatedness with genetic similarity.