All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 29, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
48:54
3914 Why I Was Wrong About Nationalism
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, there are these shows that I sometimes watch, set in the 80s in particular, so a decade of my sort of coming of age.
And I find it almost physically painful to end the shows, to stop them, and to return sort of to the modern world.
Stranger Things was one, Freaks and Geeks, it's another old show, is another.
And Freaks and Geeks mirrored a lot of my life, Dungeons and Dragons and so on.
And I find it so painful to end those shows, like I actually avoid it.
Because, and I was thinking about this, so my life back then was pretty rough, tough childhood and all that.
Why on earth would I feel this pain, this pang, this pull of nostalgia for those days?
And I realized why, which is why I wanted to talk about why I was so wrong about the nation state in my intellectual formulations over the past many, many years.
It's because back then, I lived in a crazy household, I was in the inevitable crazy government schools, but I had this belief that I would escape my crazy origins and emerge into a more sane world.
And, sad to say, that is really not what has occurred.
What I want, and I want to watch these shows and relive my teenage years and so on, what I want is that belief back that I was going to emerge from a crazy household, a crazy school environment.
Into a more sane, not a completely sane, but a more sane world where I could make my case for virtue and be listened to.
Now, a lot of that has fallen by the wayside, particularly over the past 10 years as a public intellectual.
Eleven now, actually. So I want to share why I was wrong and what I was wrong about.
And I'm going to cite some data in this.
I decided not to do a PowerPoint.
I thought a conversation would be better.
I really look forward to your feedback. I'll put the links.
To the data-driven presentations I've done on all of this material below.
So, in the past, I had great scorn for borders, imaginary lines, and so on.
Although I also said that if you have a welfare state, you have to have borders in the same way that if you have something of great value, you need to build something around it to keep it safe.
And so I do, you know, understand that, sort of recognize that I had that in the past.
But the nation state is something that I have grown much more comfortable with and even admiring of.
And of course... The nation-state must be evaluated not next to some paradise, but compared to this sort of globalism, open borders, mass migration, the welfare state being preyed upon by people from other countries, other cultures, other religions, other hemispheres.
And so the nation-state compared to what is always the philosophical question.
You know, someone, it's an apocryphal story, I think, but someone went up to a philosophy professor once and said, how's your wife?
And he said, compared to what?
And that, of course, is always the essential question, compared to what?
Is the nation-state preferable?
To globalism.
Is it something that is more sustainable than globalism?
Is it a pocket where freedom can exist, which globalism will undermine and destroy?
We'd all love to live in a neighborhood where you don't have to lock your doors.
Everybody knows your name.
You know, the neighborhoods that used to exist in the West and now really, really don't as much.
And so we say, well, now we have to lock our doors.
I don't like the fact that we have to lock our doors, but it sure prefers home invasions and robberies and everything else that might happen.
So that, I think, is what I'm comparing things now to.
It comes to the fundamental question that since we have governments, states, as in many ways the new religion, particularly of the left, as we have a centralized agency with the obligation to initiate the use of force in a given geographical area, then you're going to end up with...
Bubbles or pockets of different cultures.
There are some cultures that want smaller governments and more freedom and free speech and equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
Equality of opportunity is liberty.
Equality of outcome is tyranny.
If you think of a running race, if everyone starts at roughly the same spot and everyone has the same opportunity to run as fast as they want and train as much as they want and eat whatever they want...
That's equality of opportunity, and you really don't need any rules.
Stay in your lane. That's about it.
If you want equality of outcome, then you have to change where the runners start, and it's going to affect how fast they run, and you're going to have to micromanage everyone as they go along.
You have to weigh some people down, and you're going to...
It's an endless tyranny, an ever-escalation of petty rules.
That is the slow spiderweb strangulation of former clear and open freedoms.
So given that we have geographical regions with states, with laws, there are going to be areas in the world where the population as a whole is more keen on freedom, is more keen on property rights, is more keen on the non-initiation of force, is more keen on free speech.
So there are more rational cultures.
And there are cultures.
I mean, look at the African cultures.
I mean, they hunt down albinos because they consider them to be demonic.
Because white privilege?
Extra white privilege? I don't know.
They have a habit of raping babies because they believe it will protect them from AIDS.
They will hunt down and kill men looking for gold in their heads.
And even when there's a plague, right, there's a plague that kills someone, they bury that person and that part of the culture is to dig it up and dance with the plague-ridden corpse.
And so you're going to end up with different cultures protected and maintained by different states.
And the cultures are not equal in terms of their rationality.
Now, if I look at a perfectly rational world, all states fall short.
If I look at the world that is, then there is different values and different levels of rationality between various cultures and various states.
Now, it is inevitable, of course, that the people in the bad cultures want to get to the good cultures, right?
Because the good cultures are more free, more economically productive, and often have welfare states and refugee programs that...
Result in massive transfers of wealth.
So when there is a great prize, there is a great incentive to go and get it.
And the only thing, if you're going to have this great prize called the welfare state, free education, free healthcare, free, you name it, then you have to have borders.
You have to have borders in the world that is.
Now... This question of values is very, very important when it comes to what does it mean to have borders and what does it mean to look at the nation-state positively.
There are some people who say, and I've said it at times in the past as well, I really don't care about immigrants or migrants or anything like that.
I care about values.
So I want a small state.
I want a minimal government.
I'm what's known as a minarchist in terms of it's a stepping stone to a stateless society.
In the long run, it's the only just and moral way to run society.
We'll talk about that later.
So I want a small state.
Now... I can count, I can read a chart, and again, we'll put links to all of this below.
But if you want to find a group that statistically most wants a smaller state, you want white males.
That is the way things...
This is one of the reasons why white males are so demonized and opposed and attacked relentlessly, because white males want a smaller state.
And of course, because in the West, it is the white males who provide the vast majority of...
The taxes that the state requires to buy votes from people who don't work as much.
And so white males in particular want a smaller state.
Now, if you don't believe me, this is a survey from the Pew Group.
And again, links below. Do you want larger government?
The general public in America, 41% want larger government.
Whites, 37% of them want larger government.
Asians, 55% want larger.
Larger government.
Native-born Hispanics, 66% want larger government.
And foreign-born Hispanics, 81% want larger government.
So, this is the whole fascinating thing that's happened with the left.
Because the left have made immigration racial.
And races want, ethnic groups want, different sizes of government.
In general, the people who come from the Third World or the people who come from overseas to Western countries want bigger government in America.
And so when you're opposing immigration, it's not because of racism.
Racism is judging groups when there aren't differences, right?
It's not racist to say that Chinese, like native Chinese people, tend to be shorter than, say, Danish people.
It's not racist because it's based on fact.
To say Caucasians have straighter hair than sub-Saharan Africans.
It's not. Racist.
There's a simple statement of fact.
And so, when you have particular groups that want smaller government, and then you have other groups that want bigger government, if you want smaller government, then you're going to oppose immigration.
Of course. Because immigration generally is the stuffing of the ballot with people who want bigger and bigger government.
Now, in terms of wanting smaller government in the States, the general public, 48% want smaller government.
See, in a democracy, that's a razor-edge margin.
52% of whites want smaller government.
Only 36% of Asians want smaller government.
Among native-born Hispanics 28% want smaller government.
Among foreign-born Hispanics only 12% want smaller government.
So if you want smaller government in a democracy you are going to be opposed To immigration from particular regions.
And this is the whole question of DACA, right?
I mean, if you legalize these millions of people who were brought in as children, you're going to get chain migration and it's going to tip the balance to the point where peacefully and democratically achieving a small estate will become completely impossible.
Completely and totally and utterly, statistically, functionally and in reality impossible.
You understand that?
So this is the issue.
It's not about racism. I don't care if people with purple hair and three noses are the ones who want smaller government as a whole, then that's what matters to me.
But if you want smaller government, white males are your group.
They are your group as a whole.
And so, you know, I'd love to live in a world where skin color or ethnicity mattered about as much as hair color.
But that is not the world that is.
And we can ignore the world that is.
We can ignore the data. We can ignore the reality.
We can ignore all the surveys if we want.
But, I mean, that's just ridiculous.
The ignoring of reality is suicidal, fundamentally.
Now, when it comes to...
So libertarians really want smaller government.
And among libertarians, about two-thirds are men and about one-third are female.
If you look at groups, if you're tired of what you perceive as racism, let's try sexism, shall we?
So among groups who want smaller government, unmarried women, particularly single moms, vote for big government.
Why? Because they're basically financially married to the government.
And so, women who are married to men who are income earners want smaller government as a whole because they want to retain resources for their own family.
The family, the stable functional nuclear family, is a massive barrier.
To the expansion of state power, which is why the state is doing everything in its power to undermine and destroy the institution of marriage.
And so unmarried women vote for big state.
So you must destroy marriage in order to create a herd of irresponsible single moms to vote for the state, or single women as a whole to vote for the state.
If you have a family, you have a built-in security network.
If you get married, if you have kids, you've got extended family, you get along with people, you have...
It's automatically a hedge against risk and disaster.
If you get sick, you have people who will help you.
If you make a mistake, you have people who will help pick you up.
When you get old, you will have children to help take care of you, to give you a place to live, to help you out.
And so the family is this roving, biological, voluntary welfare state, so to speak.
And The existence of a welfare state, like a government-run welfare state, runs counter to the interests of a family unit.
Because that takes money from a family and gives it to other people.
And that means there's less capacity for the family to take care of its own, and it's a problem as a whole.
If you want to know why the media is so hostile to Christians and so positive towards atheists, well, atheists are many, many times more likely to be Democrats than the Republican ideal of smaller government.
Christians as a whole want smaller government, and therefore, since atheists are for bigger government and Christians are for smaller government, you promote atheism and you attack Christians at every conceivable opportunity.
So this is the reality of the situation.
If you want smaller government, there are demographics and there are tendencies that you need to be fully aware of.
You know, in England, there are imams who have commanded their Muslim adherents to vote for Labour, to vote for the left-wing, pretty socialist government.
And That is a problem.
That is a problem in a democracy.
That is a problem. Of course, the Labour government wants to open up the borders to even more and more and more third world immigration.
So, that is important.
It is important. Now, you can say, well, there are exceptions.
Sure. Sure, there are exceptions.
Absolutely. But in a democracy, you understand, exceptions don't count.
In a democracy, the majority counts.
And the exceptions don't count.
So if you have 90% of people voting for something, you can say, well, that's not 100% of people.
It doesn't matter. You still get that thing.
So once you tick over 50%, it doesn't matter about the exception.
So if you have a group like foreign-born Hispanics, more than 80% of them want bigger government.
Well, the fact that there are exceptions doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because that's what you get, right?
That's what you get. So, given that there's a democracy, given that there already is a welfare state, borders are necessary if you want a smaller government.
Now, for those who want a bigger government, sure, I can understand why you want to flood your country with people who vote for a bigger government.
Of course you do. Of course you do.
But you understand that people who want smaller government want to close the borders, want to reduce or eliminate immigration.
Now, you can say, I disagree with you politically.
You can say, it's right or it's wrong or it's moral or it's immoral.
You can have an argument on a political level.
But just screaming racist at people, it's a cheap and shitty trick.
You understand? I mean, it's a terrible thing to do.
You can understand why, when you've got 81% of foreign-born Hispanics wanting bigger government, the people who want smaller government, are going to be hostile to endless waves of Hispanic immigration.
You understand? Look at groups.
Look at whether they want bigger or smaller government.
And the data's right out there. Again, some of it's linked below.
And saying it's about race is ridiculous.
If the races acted the same, then discrimination would be racism.
But if races or ethnicities don't act the same, then recognizing and understanding that is important.
And the funny thing is that the left, the Democrats, the Labour Party, they all want Hispanic immigration and third world immigration because they know for sure That those immigrants are going to vote different from the general population.
They know for sure that Hispanics are going to vote for a bigger government as a whole.
So the entire immigration policy designed by the left is based upon the very reality that ethnicities are going to vote differently.
But then when people who want smaller governments say, well, ethnicities are going to vote differently...
They get screamed at as racist.
But the entire point of the left is to import people who are going to vote for bigger government.
So, again, it's one of these things.
It's a crappy old communist Trotskyist trick to invent the word racism and then say, well, I have problems with every group who want bigger government.
I have problems with communists and socialists and leftists as a whole who want bigger government.
I have problems with the rhinos, the Republicans, who want bigger government.
I mean, they'll say they want smaller government.
They always end up voting for and bringing in bigger government.
So it's, of course, silly and irrational that the left gets mad at non-leftists for pointing out differences in ethnic voting patterns, but that's exactly what the left is relying on and why they're bringing them in to begin with.
I mean, you understand.
It's crazy.
And of course, if... People wanted smaller government.
The left wouldn't be importing them.
Of course, right? We understand that.
That's one of the reasons why white South Africans, who are a very persecuted group these days, I mean, the number of farm murders in particular is absolutely appalling, and you've got hundreds of thousands of white South Africans sitting in squatter camps, barely able to survive.
Absolutely could be defined as refugees, but the left doesn't want them in, of course, because they may vote for smaller government, particularly when they have found out what it's like to be a white and become a despised group within your own country or the country that your ancestors really helped to build.
So this reality is something that we really need to understand.
Values are not equally distributed among ethnicities, which is what the left relies on.
If Hispanics voted for Republicans, then the left would have already built a wall visible from space.
Of course, right? So the left relies on this, and yet they get mad when other people point it out.
It's typical from the left, but it's just important to understand how hypocritical it is.
Now, as far as multiculturalism goes, as far as nation states go, the idea that you want to keep your culture, that you want to keep...
If your culture is small government, of course you want to keep your culture because your culture is synonymous then with freedom, with property rights, with liberty, with opportunity, with free speech, with a lack of self-censorship, with a separation of church and state, with the vestigial separation of state and economics, relatively free market.
If that's your culture, that's good.
And if people believe in that, Because of cultural inertia?
That's good. That's good.
It's the old question, if you go to a doctor, would you rather the doctor give you the wrong diagnosis but the right prescription?
Or would you rather the doctor give you the right diagnosis but the wrong prescription?
Of course, you'd rather the doctor make the mistake in the diagnosis but give you the correct medicine.
In the same way, if there are irrational foundations to people's belief in rational ideals, I'll take it.
Because the manifestation is what matters.
Their thought processes are less important to me than the manifestation of the non-aggression principle.
Thou shalt not initiate force against thy fellow man.
That is what matters to me.
So I am much more friendly to irrational belief systems that produce rational outcomes than I am towards, quote, rational belief systems that produce irrational and destructive outcomes.
So the whole question, of course, then comes up around ethno-nationalism.
And this, again, is a very racist phenomenon for the most part.
There are very few people who get incensed and enraged that Israel wants to stay a Jewish state.
There are very, very few people who get enraged and insane about the fact that Japan wishes to remain Japanese.
There is, in the Mexican constitution, a foundational principle that you cannot mess with the demographics of Mexico.
That you cannot have a population replacement in Mexico.
And people don't scream at that as racist or xenophobic or whatever.
But when whites wish to keep freedom, and the freedom that...
Like tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of whites fought and died to achieve over the past couple of centuries.
Millennia, really. Well, then of course it's racist and crazy.
And this is an abusive relationship.
Because if whites can't have a country where freedom is respected, and the fact that freedom is most respected among whites, and in particular white males, is a statistical reality.
If whites can't have it, then of course it should be a universal principle that no one can have anything.
That is, in-group preferences.
No one can, like... The fact that whites aren't allowed to have an in-group preference for political freedom, for property rights, for separation of church and state and so on, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, means that no group should have an in-group preference.
It means the Democrats should not allow only Democrats into their party.
It means that academics must have affirmative action to hire non-leftists.
But that's not what happens.
What happens is if whites say, well, we want a free society, and right now the reality is, in an ideal world, maybe it's different, but right now the reality is that whites want smaller government, and non-whites in general want bigger government, so if you want smaller government, you have to go, you know, you have to go to where the beliefs lie.
If that is, of course, attacked, and then it's not, it's not whites who are fundamentally being attacked, it's the idea of smaller government and how to achieve it.
Now, why do people want bigger government?
Well, people want bigger government because they get free stuff.
And this is the rich and the poor, right?
Military, industrial complex, the welfare, and all this kind of stuff.
And politicians love having stuff to hand out, right?
I mean, the basic idea of the king is the king can give you a gift.
And that's why you give allegiance to the king.
You fight for the king so that you can be granted land, as my ancestors did all the way back to the Norman Conquest 1066.
You fight for the king so that the king will give you land and treasure.
And so the buying of allegiance through the handing out of stolen goods, that is foundational to the state as a whole, and that's fundamentally what is going on.
Now, the challenge, of course, when it comes to these questions of the nation-state versus individualism and tolerance and multiculturalism and diversity and so on, is not logically very complicated.
So, If you value individualism, then collectivist cultures in a status society, you understand, collectivist cultures are going to be a problem.
If you value individualism, then collectivist cultures are going to be a problem in a status society.
If you value tolerance, intolerant cultures are going to cause problems for you.
If you value multiculturalism Then cultures which do not value multiculturalism are going to cause a problem.
If you value diversity, then those cultures which do not value diversity are going to cause problems in a statist society, in a democracy.
And this basic question of diversity is a strength, so we're going to import endless ways of cultures that have no traditional respect for diversity.
No traditional respect for diversity.
I mean, you can look at just this basic equation, right?
So the response to the migrant crisis was for the Saudi Arabian government to fund the building of 200 mosques in Germany.
So there's a one-way street, right?
You can get a foreign government to fund and support the building of 200 mosques in Germany.
Now, can the German government fund and support the building of 200 Christian churches in Saudi Arabia?
Well, of course not. Of course not.
So this question of reciprocity, this question of if diversity is a value, then what is our relationship to cultures that do not value diversity?
It's not logically that tough to figure out.
And of course, the idea of diversity being a value is not the case at all.
I mean, diversity is not a value.
In academia, again, it's relentlessly leftist.
In academia, particularly in non-American Western countries, it's relentlessly leftist.
Leftist in academia, so there's no interest in diversity there.
If you look at the question of is diversity a strength, then try and be a conservative and give a speech in a Western college campus.
As a taxpayer, you are funding these colleges.
Do you have the opportunity to exercise your free speech when invited by particular groups into that college?
And the answer is very often no.
Can you gather together and peacefully demonstrate against things that you don't like?
Well, if you're on the left for the most part, yes.
I mean, there are not a lot of people on the right destroying these pussy marches and things like that.
But if you are not on the left and you try to gather and protest, you are very likely to be physically attacked or to have your speech shut down or to have fire alarms pulled or to have massive disruptions.
So there is no diversity even among those who value diversity.
The question of course arises to me If you sort of look at the higher IQ countries, sort of Japan and China and the sort of East Asian countries, you look at Israel, of course, although the IQ of Jews in Israel is not massively high compared to the Ashkenazi Jews around the world.
Look at the Western countries.
You have high IQ countries.
Now, there are smart people.
There's a bell curve everywhere. So there are smart people born, brilliant people born into low IQ countries.
And... They, of course, want to get to the West.
I completely understand that.
That makes perfect sense to me.
The average IQ in Somalia is, what, in the high 60s, low 70s, something like that.
And so if you're born with a brilliant brain in Somalia, you want to probably get out of Somalia as quickly as humanly possible.
You want to get to the West. But the important thing to understand about that is Is that if you are a Somali and you desperately want to get away from all your fellow Somalians, that means that you're very prejudiced against your fellow Somalians.
That the only decent life you can have is to get as far away from Somalia as humanly possible.
Well, so it seems kind of odd that Somalis are allowed to have a negative view of Somalians, but no one else is.
You understand? Like, I mean, if someone wants to get to the West from Somalia, it's like, well, they clearly don't think that Somalia can be fixed.
They don't think it can be improved.
They don't want to stay and fight to improve their country and their culture.
So they must have a very negative view of Somalians.
And so the idea that Somalis are allowed to have a negative view of Somalians, which is why they want to escape Somalia, but nobody else is allowed to have any negative view of Somalians, again, it just seems a little racist.
Well, in fact, it's a lot racist.
The question of IQ has come up a lot, of course, and I talk about it because I want people to know the science.
I bring the experts on because I want people to know the science.
Because people are going to talk about ethnicity and IQ, they're going to talk about race and IQ, and either it's going to be informed by facts and data and recent arguments, or it's not.
And, of course, I believe that it's important to have as informed a set of opinions about all of this stuff as possible.
Now, here's the challenge.
There are very tall people from China in the NBA. Very tall people.
Very unusual for Chinese people to be that tall.
And there are Danish jockeys, I'm sure, like really short Danes.
Danes are the tallest people I think of the world.
Very short Danish people.
And they are very much exceptions.
And the problem is, of course, that the children of very short Danish people are likely to be very tall.
Well, taller. They may not be as tall as the average Dane, but they'll be a lot taller than their parents.
The children of the really tall Chinese basketball players are very likely to be much shorter because it's called regression to the mean.
You know, you can throw the ball up, but it comes back down.
It's called regression to the mean.
So here's the challenge.
Given that IQ is significantly genetic, we've got 60%, 70%, up to 80% later in life that is genetic.
If IQ is genetic, then the people who are high from low IQ... Groups as a whole, the people who have high IQs, when they come to a country, then they're going to have kids.
And those kids are likely to be lower in terms of IQ. And this has been studied repeatedly, and we'll put links to it below.
Jason Richwine did a whole thesis on this where he said basically the low Hispanic IQ is functionally permanent.
Like they've tracked it for two generations, three generations.
You get smart people coming in, but their kids tend to be Less intelligent.
It's just the regression to the mean.
So the question is not, do you want the tall Chinese basketball player?
The question to the NBA owner, so to speak, would be, do you want the tall Chinese basketball player on the condition that you also hire all of his children?
And that would put a bit of a question.
And this is science.
This is not something that's made up.
This is not something that I wish were the case.
But you've got to grit your teeth and deal with reality.
So the reality when it comes to getting, say, groups from sub-Saharan Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, the average IQ is 70.
70, which means about half the population is below that.
Now, no functional democracy has ever been observed to exist.
Dr. Helmuth Nyberg was on the show talking about this.
No functional democracy has ever been seen to exist or maintain itself.
Basic freedoms, something that's not dictatorial.
It's not an oligarchical, collectivist, totalitarian nightmare.
Once the general population dips below 90, IQ doesn't happen.
And you can see the IQ in the West is dropping over time.
And I know there's a Flynn effect, but that's controversial, and that doesn't seem to be specifically related to G as a whole.
It's more very detailed subsets of G, general intelligence, general raw intelligence, the stuff that's measured by reflexes, that's measured by IQ tests, that is replicable across a variety of fields and so on.
General intelligence is declining in the West, and if general intelligence declines enough, the West will no longer be free.
We'll no longer be free.
So then it comes down to the question of, is there such a thing as genetic in-group preferences?
And, of course there is.
I mean, evolution runs on genetic in-group preferences.
So, if your child is drowning, and there are two other children drowning, which child are you going to save?
Now you can get all, oh, I would just, you know, flip a coin.
Come on. I tell you right now, I'm sorry about your kids, but if I'm not going to save one child, it's my child who's coming back to shore with me.
It's just the way it works. There is genetic in-group preferences and, and...
If other groups have genetic in-group preferences and your group doesn't, your group will lose.
Right? So the analogy is, I know it's not an argument, but it's an illustration.
An analogy is, if you're playing soccer and the other team only passes to themselves, but you pass to both your team and the other team, you're going to lose.
So if everyone gives up genetic in-group preferences, which I don't think is humanly possible, that's kind of how we evolved over the last couple of hundred thousand years.
It's kind of how nature has evolved over the last couple of billion years.
There is only evolution because there is genetic in-group preference, at least one of the major components.
So even if we could somehow, like this new Soviet man, like somebody who works in the economy...
Who doesn't have any particular preference, doesn't respond to incentives, isn't motivated by profit or wealth accumulation or anything like that, which never came to be, never existed.
And this is one of the reasons why, along with the price calculation problem, one of the reasons why central planning, socialism, communism, Soviet-style or semi-Soviet-style, as in Venezuela, always destroys itself.
So if we could somehow create an environment where there was no genetic in-group preferences of any kind whatsoever, then there's a possibility that this could theoretically work.
I mean, it's not going to happen, but if you could.
However, if you have groups that have genetic in-group preferences and you are combining them in a society with groups that don't have genetic in-group preferences, then the groups without genetic in-group preferences are going to lose in the long run.
And for those who say, well, it would be nice if that wasn't the case, well, this nice stuff, what does that mean?
What does it matter? What would be nice in theory?
I fundamentally don't understand that.
It's like saying, well, I refuse to learn piano because it would be much better if I had tentacles I could play with.
It's like, well, you don't have tentacles.
I hope not. You don't have tentacles.
You have to deal with what it is, to deal with reality.
It would be nice if I could fly flat.
And we can see this.
Groups prefer their own company.
This is just a reality.
You can look at the lunchroom test.
It's been replicated countless times in psychological studies.
Look at the lunchroom test. The Hispanics are sitting with the Hispanics.
The Blacks are sitting with the Blacks. The Whites are sitting with the Whites.
And sometimes the Mormons are sitting with the Mormons and the Rastafarians are sitting with the Rastafarians and so on.
So there is values mixed into it, but there's a lot of genetic stuff as well.
If you look at churches in the United States, so churches are not subject to diversity mandates and multiculturalism mandates.
90% of the churches in America are either 90% white or 90% black, if you just look at that bichromatic rainbow of American genetic preference.
And so, when people are free to congregate and associate among themselves, they tend to prefer genetic in-group preferences.
This is not just a human thing, just so you understand that.
If it's prejudice, well then, you don't believe in evolution, and if it's prejudice, then bees are prejudiced as well, because they've done studies where they take bees...
from various genetic origins and then they mix them all up together and they let them fly and be free to congregate with whoever they want and lo and behold the bees that are the closest genetically end up congregating together and it's dose dependent like they've had i think 17 different layers of genetic proximity and the bees all cluster along those genetic lines you can rail against it you can get mad at it but of course if you're going to get mad at it Then the last group you'd ever get mad at is whites,
because whites have been the ones who have unilaterally disarmed genetic in-group preference.
You know, the old saying that you can be a proud black man, you can be a proud Japanese man, you can be a proud Jew, but if you're a proud white man, you're a racist and a KKK and a Nazi, right?
Male equals racist, white equals Nazi.
These are the new equations.
So if... If you are going to rail against genetic in-group preferences, then whites would be very bottom of your list.
But of course whites are at the top of everyone's list when it comes to railing against genetic in-group preferences.
Why? Because whites in particular, why are white males so demonized?
Because white males produce the tax revenue that the politicians in Western countries want to take to hand out to buy votes.
And if whites develop genetic in-group preferences, that whole con, that whole scheme, that whole shakedown is threatened.
When it comes to multiculturalism, they say diversity is our strength.
So there's this guy Putnam who studied the effects of diversity on neighborhoods.
And he actually sat, I think it was about half a decade, he sat on the study results because he was so appalled by what came out.
But it was very clear. The more diverse, the more multicultural a neighborhood becomes, the less cohesion, the less community, the less enjoyment, the less outdoor play.
People cocoon, they stay home, they're unhappy.
Every single group ends up unhappier.
And that's important. Now, when it comes to migration and immigration in the nation-state, here's another factor.
Okay, imagine this. Imagine that...
I go to Japan. Like, I love Japan.
I want to go and live in Japan.
And I go and I move to Japan.
And Japan is nice enough to let me.
Now, I would go to Japan because I really liked Japanese culture.
So the idea that I would go to Japan in order to change its culture would make no sense at all.
It would make no sense at all.
It would be like spending a couple of thousand dollars to fly to Barbados and then getting really angry that you couldn't ski.
You go to Barbados for the heat, for the culture, for the friendly people, for the food, for whatever, right?
But you don't go to Barbados and then want it to become something other than Barbados.
I guess that maybe it's a woman thing, you know, like, I'm going to marry this guy, I'm going to change him, I'm going to fix him, right?
So, if I move to Japan, it's because I respect the Japanese culture and don't want it to change.
I want to absorb myself.
I want to assimilate. I want to absorb myself as much as possible in the Japanese culture.
What I can't imagine is this.
I can't imagine going to Japan and then beginning to scream and yell that I found Japanese culture offensive and racist and horrible and ugly and vicious and bigoted and mean and nasty and whatever, and then demanding that the Japanese give up their Shinto shrines, demanding that the Japanese culture change according to my preferences.
And then I couldn't imagine going to Japan, meeting up with a bunch of other white people, getting together a big group, and then funding and voting for groups fundamentally opposed to what the majority of Japanese people want.
The majority of whites in the West, in America in particular, I don't know about the other countries, but the majority of whites in America, let's say, want smaller government.
And so when immigrants come in and start voting for and funding Political parties that want bigger governments, then they're going against the fundamental wishes of the majority of the domestic population.
So can you imagine? I go to Japan.
Through chain migration, I bring in endless waves of people just like myself, and we start funding and agitating and pounding the table and supporting political groups in Japan that want to undo Japanese culture and go against the wishes of the majority of people in Japan.
You understand that that would be considered a horrible thing to do.
The Japanese. And it's not a matter of supremacy.
Because you want your country to remain your country, because you want your culture to remain your culture, doesn't mean that you want it to dominate other cultures, right?
I mean, the fact that I like political freedom and freedom of speech and free markets and property rights in the West doesn't mean that I can't stand the fact that there's a China.
I don't care. It'll give me freedom.
And I can make the arguments for freedom around the world, but it's not a matter of dominance.
I believe the values are objectively superior and rational and right.
But knowing that you're right doesn't mean that you want to beat up everyone you disagree with.
So that's important to understand.
Now, if there were waves of immigrants coming into Japan that were funding and wanting political outcomes that went against the history, the culture, and the preferences of the majority of the Japanese people, What would you think?
Would you scream that the Japanese people were racist for not wanting their country to be fundamentally changed against their wishes?
I've never heard of it.
You know, in Israel recently, they've said, well, the African migrants, they have to go back.
They have to go back. Because Israel wants to remain a Jewish state.
Do people say, well, that's horribly bigoted and racist?
I mean, I'm sure there are a few, but it's not.
So you understand that there's this gathering anger among whites and white males in particular, which is when you get singled out for abuse and everyone else who has similar preferences is defended, but you're attacked for having those preferences...
Well, that pisses people off.
Of course, it's hypocritical and it's wrong.
If the West...
Like, it's so weird, because if you think about the West and you say, it was really wrong for Western governments to go to third-world countries and pillage their resources.
Well... Because the standard narrative is, well, the third world countries are poor because the West stripped the mind of the resources.
Nonsense. Japan has almost no natural resources.
Their resource, fundamentally, is high IQ. And that means that they can do just about anything.
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, and are currently completely destroyed economically, and it's getting worse.
The only fundamental resource that matters is two fundamental resources that matter, and they're somewhat related.
Empathy and IQ. One can be taught, the other mostly can't be.
Empathy can be taught, just for those who do haven't listened to me waffle about this stuff in other contexts and situations.
So the third world is poor because it's got low average IQ. India will never become China because Chinese IQ is above whites, which explains, of course, why in the supposedly endlessly racist white countries, why do East Asians make more than whites?
Because they have a higher IQ. And so a white Irish can have to do this, maybe more than Asians, because higher IQ. It's not tough to understand.
Once you really get it, it explains just about everything and eliminates the concept of racism in all but the most extreme circumstances, which, of course, is why this information must be suppressed.
So if it's wrong, of course, for Western governments in the past to go and strip mine resources from the Third World, Then how is it right for Western governments to go and strip mine intelligent people from the third world?
How is that possibly right?
Because you know what happens as well as I do.
If massive amounts of immigration are allowed into Western countries, the smartest people in the third world come to the West.
Okay, so when you're smart, you have less incentive to go on welfare and more incentive to work because working is going to get you more money and opportunity than welfare.
If you're not smart, then welfare makes more sense than working, which is another big problem.
But if the smartest people from the third world come to the West, what happens to those third world countries?
What happens? Are jobs getting created?
Are businesses getting built? Is infrastructure being built?
Is government becoming less corrupt?
Because corruption is another low IQ activity.
The lower the IQ of the country, the more corrupt the government.
Because corruption is about taking value in the now and destroying the future.
Deferral of gratification is foundational to IQ. In fact, I argue it's one of the reasons why IQ developed in the first place.
Higher IQ. Because you needed to defer gratification to be a farmer and survive cold winters.
So what happens to the third world countries?
When the West takes in best modest people.
Well, they get worse. And what that means is the second tier of smart people have to flee the country and come to the West, which means that the countries get even worse and worse and worse and worse.
You understand? It is horrendous for third world countries.
If it's wrong to strip mine natural resources, physical resources, from third world countries, how is it right to strip mine intelligence from third world countries, condemning them to a life of decay and horror and degradation?
And... Of course, it's not even kind to the people who come to the first world countries because when people come to the first world countries, if they're not smart, they rely on the welfare state.
The welfare state statistically cannot last.
It will not last.
What that means is that the welfare state is going to collapse and then you have a bunch of people who've left their home countries, who are stranded in first world countries, and who aren't going to get their welfare checks.
Come on. That is a horrible trap.
And anybody with half a brain would recognize what a disaster that is going to be.
Populations rise based upon the free market and smart people getting the most resources, which allows them to maximize those resources, right?
The best farmers can bid the most for the land, which means more land accumulates to the best farmers, more food gets produced, which means more people can live and be sustained in cities.
Now, If you interfere with that, if you take resources away from the smartest people and spread them around less smart people, you have to do that through debt.
Otherwise, the economic disaster of that shows up too quickly and you can't get away with that sleight of hand.
Often an intergenerational sleight of hand.
But if you look at Russia and in particular Ukraine, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, they went in and they took all the land from the most productive farmers and they handed it out to every drunken doofus who could claim to have any kind of property right on it.
And what that meant was they collectivized the farms and they got rid of the smartest farmers, often killed them, everyone starved to death.
How is that kind? How is that kind?
The final issue is I want smaller and smaller government, more and more freedom.
That is going to require a high IQ population.
It's just the way it works. It's not my fault.
You can get mad at me if you want, but it's like getting mad at the weather.
It's just a fact. Don't shoot the messenger.
Disprove the science. Hey, I'd love it if you did.
It'd be fantastic. So my ideal, and I've written about this extensively, you can get my books at freedomainradio.com.
I've written about this extensively.
My ideal is a stateless society in the long run because the initiation of the use of force is immoral.
All these people say, oh, you're still an ANCAP, are you still a voluntarist, are you still an anarchist?
It's not up to me. Am I still an atheist?
It's not up to me. The arguments are the arguments.
The initiation of force is immoral.
There's no magic dividing line between those in the government and those outside the government.
They're just people.
The ideal moral state is a stateless society.
And I've written about this practical anarchy, everyday anarchy, all available for free on my website.
You can also get them from Amazon.
I'd appreciate it if you bought them too.
So that, of course, is the ideal.
How do we get there? We cannot get there through globalism.
We get there through the nation state.
We get there through people gathering together who want smaller government.
And that means control over immigration.
Logically. That's what I advocate.
We get to a free society through the nation state.
I have opposed the nation state in the past.
I hope you understand now why I was wrong.
Please help out the show, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
▲
Export Selection