Kyle Rowland writes: I have been pointing out fatal problems with core alt-right positions for a while now. I openly invite anyone who wants to come on to defend their movement. So far nobody has managed to put up any substantial defense.
I have also laid out my own political position, which is worth restating:
Human biodiversity says that you will have a differences in relevant traits within and between populations. Most saliently, there are differences in intelligence.
Wherever there are large differences in intelligence, you have conflict. In specific, you have attempts by low IQ groups to murder and steal the wealth produced by high IQ groups.
It appears that the difference in intelligence is what is driving this murderous and destructive behavior, not differences in race or ethnicity. Differences in race and ethnicity do seem to create these destructive dynamics, but through the differences in traits, most saliently differences in intelligence that drive wealth gaps.
In the French and Russian revolutions you can see the worst humanity has to offer as packs of thieving morons murder their most educated, intelligent, and productive countrymen, alongside their wives and children.
In the genocides, expulsions and discrimination suffered by – among others:
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
Jews in Old Europe
Tutsi in Rwanda and African Great Lakes region
The Chinese in Malaysia.
The Igbo in Nigeria.
The Whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
The Indians of Uganda
Are all characterized by precisely the avarice and lies that characterized the French revolutionaries. The ethnic differences catalyze the violence through differences in productivity, that lead to differences in wealth, that lead to jealousy and rage.
Property is a social construct. It is not sustained through government action, but through individual enforcement. There’s no government database saying that my wallet is mine, that my laptop is mine, that my telescope is mine, that my keys are mine. They are mine because I claim them and defend my claim through the implicit threat that I will physically and socially attack anyone who tries to grab or claim my property.
This threat is what underlies property, and is what would form the basis of my ownership even if there WAS a government database that stated that these specific possessions are mine.
I am critical of revolutionaries who seize the property of their productive countrymen, and often murder them for good measure. But much of the blame, in all the real-world cases, lies with those most productive countrymen. They fail, and fail catastrophically and unforgivably, in their duty to maintain credible deterrence. They fail to draw the social and physical boundaries they must draw.
When someone claims that my laptop is theirs, my response must be immediate physical or verbal attacks on this person until those claims are withdrawn. If, in the presence or absence of witnesses, someone claims that my laptop is theirs, and I fail to gainsay this with an effective physical or verbal assault, the reality of my claim to my laptop wavers. It is not clear that my laptop is mine if somebody else can say it is theirs without me gainsaying them. Ownership is a social construct based on claims. Claims must be defended to be valid.
The French aristocracy and petit bourgeois failed to effectively defend their claims to property and rights that they formally had. People were able to gainsay their claimed rights and property, without being beaten down with physical or social assaults. Given this, it is not actually clear that when the revolutionaries stormed their houses, stole their possessions, raped their wives, and murdered their children, that those revolutionaries were violating their rights. A whole lot of talking preceded that violent action, and the nature of that conversation made it unclear whether the contested properties belonged to their former owners, or to the usurpers who seized them.
Say I leave my laptop where it stands and sit a few tables away. Then someone comes along and says – is this anyone’s laptop? Hello? Is this anyone’s laptop? Then they pick up the laptop. Then I run up to them and wrestle them for control of the laptop, and we both sustain injuries in the struggle and end up in some form of arbitration.
It is not totally clear who is in the wrong.
Similarly, when french revolutionaries talk about how the king’s power is illegitimate, and the king demurs, when the french revolutionaries talk about how market elites are illegitimate, and the market elites demur, it is not totally clear who is the thief and who is the usurper when things come to violence.
To allow this ambiguity to permeate the social system of property and power is to invite ultraviolence. To be sure, there is a good case to be made that the french revolutionaries were vile thieves and murderers, especially given what they did to each other after taking power. But there is also a case to be made that the royals and petit bourgeois were unforgivably negligent in their response to the challenges that preceded the violence.
To bring this back to present day, our modern elites fail to respond adequately to claims that they are illegitimate, and their property is stolen. They should respond with withering social assaults — identify those who make those claims with Nazi concentration camp administrators, and with Hutu machete-wielders who seize babes from their mothers’ arms and hack them apart on the spot. Point out that precisely the same logic is being deployed in the prelude to those murderous atrocities, towards them.
It is clear that the safest, and most moral course of action when faced with people who attempt to blur the lines of what belongs to who, is to crack the whip. To fail to do so is to accept the blurring of the lines, and thus invite thieves into your home to kill you, murder your children, rape your wife, and burn it down.
To make our elites realize the shape of this moral landscape is to stabilize this country, and pave the way to radical improvements.