He also claims that some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being good slaves. Please think critically about this, instead of just saying "well, he says he's not racist!"
He tried to explain that opinion further: "The ability to survive as an agricultural slave is a talent."
I've no idea whether Spaniards and Englishmen really did find Indians unfit for slavery but I guess the argument that is being made is that more of them might have been kept alive if they were able to provide greater economic value to their conquerors. Sick, I know.
Agree that it's not an opinion fit to be voiced in modern society, however, it doesn't seem to be the opinion that people are trying to cast it under.
You may think that such a statement is merely logical, but it becomes rather something else when one, like Moldbug, has a long history of rhetoric where it seems pretty clear his sympathies are with the oppressors.
No, it's not merely logical, it's instrumental. Curtis Yarvin had a bone to pick with progressive society. I think it's highly likely that he still thinks it is ignorant, just as it does of him.
However, I don't think misconstruing his words is a good attack. The dust eventually settles.
I have read it and I don't think the author is an outspoken advocate of slavery.
The passage most frequently cited as evidence of this charge is:
Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences.
A charitable reading of this, in my mind, goes:
Some slavers had an opinion about who made good slaves and who didn't. If one wanted to rationalize a basis for that opinion, which historically existed, the easiest/laziest answer would be genetic traits common to the populations in question
Check the definition of "parsimonious" and assume the author used it on purpose.
It's a very strange interpretation, especially given that there is a strong body of historical sociology on exactly this question. I'm thinking primarily of Orlando Patterson's _Slavery and Social Death_ - which would suggest that while Native Americans could potentially escape back to their people, African slaves had a much harder time alone, which was precisely the slavers' plan.
No doubt you are right. I'm sure the slavers had all sorts of tactics, and opinions about both their tactics and the enslaved, which were wrong.
The author seems to be positing the "easiest" explanation for why a particular opinion took hold among the slavers. Personally, my parsimonious explanation would be groupthink/received wisdom. Which, if it had to have a "legit" origin, was probably a multitude of factors such as you describe.
But, I'm not the author, and was just trying to explain why I don't think that passage is the heinous smoking gun that so many people think it is.
I don't think the case for Moldbug-as-pro-slavery based on that article rests on picking two sentences from it. Here are a few more.
Fairly early on, he argues for a more modest proposition:
"A society is richer if each individual in it has the right to bind her future actions by agreed obligations, in return for which others may exchange other consideration. [...] we are almost all the way to Carlyle on slavery. We have not agreed that a man can be born a slave, but we agree that he can sell himself into slavery. That is: he can sign a contract with a master in which the slave agrees unconditionally to obey and work for the master, and the master agrees unconditionally to protect and support the slave."
OK, but that's only voluntary slavery. What next?
"It is only a short step from seeing the State as an enforcer of voluntary and binding obligations, to an enforcer of involuntary and arbitrary obligations. No society can possibly exist without uncontracted obligations."
He goes on to give (not being allowed to trespass on) inherited property and (the obligations that come with) family relationships as examples of uncontracted obligations.
OK, so Moldbug is in favour of voluntary slavery and thinks that sometimes it's good for the state to enforce involuntarily acquired obligations. We're still not all the way to actual slavery, of course; it depends on what sort of involuntarily acquired obligations the state should be enforcing.
"Indeed, the definition of family in most times and places has included slaves. [...] The relationship of master and slave is a natural human relationship: that of patron and client."
So now he tells us that slavery is natural and suggests (though he doesn't exactly say it) we should think of it as an aspect of family. He goes on to discuss slavery (being bound to one person), serfdom (being bound to a patch of land and its owners), and ordinary government (being bound to a much larger patch of land and its owners -- it seems to me like there are some super-important differences between serfdom and citizenship, but never mind), and concludes from how widespread these systems are:
"This is a pretty good clue that this structure is one to which humans are biologically adapted."
OK, so he says slavery is natural and humans are biologically adapted to it. Now what?
"Not all humans are born the same, of course, and the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery. For others, it is more suited to slavery."
(It is interesting to put this alongside his protestations that when he says black people are less intelligent than white people, of course he isn't at all making any sort of value judgement or saying that white people are better, dear me no.)
OK. So he says slavery is natural, humans are biologically adapted to it, and some people's inborn characteristics make them natural slaves. What next?
"These characteristics can be expected to group differently in human populations of different origins. [...] Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences."
So now we see the passage you quoted in its context. He says: Slavery is natural, humans are biologically adapted to it, some people's inborn characteristics make them natural slaves, and these characteristics are distributed differently in different populations; for instance, at least a few hundred years ago, Africans made good slaves, and this is probably for genetic reasons.
(But oh deary deary me no, when he says there are statistical differences in certain psychological characteristics between races, he doesn't mean any sort of value judgement by it. Only that some races are naturally suited to slavery and others to mastery, that's all. Who could possibly object to that?)
"Conversely, the subject-government relationship easily becomes dysfunctional for clients who are natural slaves, ie, are not capable of guiding themselves to live in a human and humane manner. [...] If all long-term welfare cases were transferred from Washington to the authority of genuine, truly charitable nonprofits, for example, their new human supervisors could intervene on a personal, discretionary basis to compel them to get their acts together. This would be a step toward humanity in our society - and also a step toward slavery."
So: he says slavery is natural, some people are natural slaves, those people won't flourish as free citizens; "all long-term welfare cases" are in this category; they should become, in effect, slaves -- for their own good, of course! -- and this would be an improvement.
(But no, of course he isn't an outspoken advocate of slavery. How could anyone think such a thing?)
I'm sorry you don't like it. But those comments are there for a reason: to link what he said in that article with the claims he's making now.
As for the sarcasm: when someone (1) talks at length about how natural slavery is and how some people are naturally fitted for slavery, and calls for all long-term government benefit recipients to be made into slaves, and (2) insinuates (without quite saying it explicitly) that the average black person really ought to be a slave because that's what their inborn character and intelligence make best for them, and then (1') gets indignant at being called an advocate of slavery and (2') insists, in tones of offended innocence, that if anyone thinks them racist for taking about mental differences between black and white people, the problem is all theirs for being so "IQist" ... well, I really think some amount of sarcasm is called for.
That's not my meaning at all, in at least two ways.
Firstly, this isn't about what sort of person Yarvin is (jerk or not-jerk), it's about what he's done in the specific instance we're talking about.
Secondly, neither advocating slavery and oppression nor being sarcastic about a stranger on the internet is the same thing as being a jerk.
So it's more like "The other guy is being grossly dishonest about the terrible horrible no good very bad things he has said, therefore I'm justified in being quite vigorous in pointing out the dishonesty of what he's saying now and the horribleness of the things he said before".
FWIW I doubt Yarvin is a jerk. I expect he's pleasant and interesting company and kind to strangers and animals. Being a jerk is just one of many ways to go wrong, and it is not what I am claiming Yarvin has done. If all the bad things I say about Yarvin and more are true, and if those are not just one-off occurrences but a matter of settled character, then the consequence isn't that he's a jerk, it's more that he's a fascist or something. I happen to think I'm not a jerk either, but at least you're in the right ball-park there: if all the bad things you say about me and more are true, and if that is a matter of settled character rather than a one-off, then indeed I'm a jerk :-).
[EDITED for clarity here and there; no changes to meaning.]
I have just taken a look at the blog post you linked to.
If you've read that and come to the conclusion that the author is a racist, I can explain what you've missed in one word: intent.
The author is exploring ideas. The early parts of the blog post set this exploratory tone quite clearly by framing Carlyle not as someone with absolute moral authority, but as an original thinker, a counterbalance to his time and our time. By exploring Carlyle's ideas the idea is to examine commonly held assumptions. It's an intellectual exercise, and a healthy one at that.
As for the 'racist' comments, I don't think they're racist. The 'racist' argument being made can be summarised as... 'The idea that genetic diversity is equally balanced across all races has not been proven, it's an assumption made to further a political cause. However, even if there are genetic traits more closely associated with one race over the others, it does not make those other races inferior. This line of reasoning exposes another form of oppression, one based on intellect rather than genetics, where the right to rule over others is determined by perceived intellectual superiority.'
To me, that's not racist. I do believe there are genetic dispositions amongst people of different backgrounds. For example, look at average height. If I go to Asia or South America and stand next to people I meet there, I would tend to be taller. Do I think I'm a better person than them because I'm taller? Fuck no. Can you appreciate this point of view?
I didn't say anything about racism. I said that that blog post seems like sufficient grounds to call the author an "outspoken advocate of slavery" even if when that becomes inconvenient for him he says he isn't one.
And yes, he frames what he says as an exploration of Carlyle's ideas, but he's not just saying "Carlyle said this; isn't that interesting"; he's presenting his own opinions too.
As for whether believing that white people are (statistically, on balance) cleverer than black people makes you a "racist" -- which, again, was not what I was referring to above: it's really a question about the definition of "racist", and disputes over definitions tend to be unfruitful. For what it's worth, I would not call anyone a racist merely for believing that proposition.
> "he's not just saying "Carlyle said this; isn't that interesting""
From what I saw, that's exactly what I think he's saying, perhaps I missed something you saw, perhaps I didn't. It seems the conversation has pretty much run its course now, so shall we agree to disagree?
I mean, it is possible that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have misinterpreted your writing on colonialism, human biodiversity, etc. However, you seem to be smart and a better than average writer (if florid, at times). It seems like someone of your intelligence and writing ability would be able to make a point effectively, without so many misunderstandings.
But, I hope that I have misunderstood your writing on those subjects.
I've met a lot of black people, but I've never met the black race. I've met a lot of white people, but I've never met the white race. I've never met a race and I don't expect to.
I've met stupid people and smart people and a whole lot of people who were stupid one way and smart another, but I've never met anyone with an IQ and I don't expect I ever will.
Or as one notorious racist once put it: '"As for "race," you can learn way more about someone from a minute of conversation than from a full genome sequence -- even if we knew how to decode the information in the sequence, which we don't.'
Ooo, I'm jumping into the firepit here. I haven't even read the article.
But if he's talking about what happened to groups of people, isn't it correct then to talk about characteristics of groups of people?
Normally, I would stay away from stereotypes and generalizations, and yet aggregate characteristics are useful about talking about what happens to groups of people.
The real trouble comes when you try to apply an aggregate observation to the individual. You can't. That's the racist bit.
Edit: Another problem is, and what we've seen here, is that observations or opinions about groups are often used to evaluate a member of said group when met. Curse our brains for taking shortcuts.
Also, I probably should have asked this upfront - are you up in arms about the construct of IQ, or the suggestion that that a group of people might differ in a particular characteristic?
I consider "racism" to be a mental/emotional disease and you describe it well: a logical confusion between "group", which is a mental construct, and the real individuals encountered in real life, leading to severe anti-social behaviour. Generalizations are useful, but people get fucked up on "race".
To answer your question, I am upset that someone as intelligent and otherwise interesting as the urbit fellow should suffer from the logic-disease of racism. It's like how Konrad Zuse is always neglected because he worked for the Nazis, so "fuck him", eh?
Generalizations can be useful, "race" typically isn't. "IQ" can be a useful shorthand, but if you take it too seriously... Let's just say that Mensa is a group of people who are almost, but not quite, as intelligent as they like to think they are.
To paraphrase Deckard, '"IQ" is like any other concept, it's either a benefit or a hazard. If it's a benefit it's not my problem.'
What the research addressed was the IQ bell curves among various groups. What the research didn't address was correlation between IQ scores, intelligence, and general life satisfaction, difference between "academic smarts" and "street smarts", presence of various impurities among the ethnic groups, etc.
I wouldn't say they're fictions anymore than I would say gravity is fiction. They're models, so by definition they don't fully encompass that which they're meant to represent. I think IQ has some usefulness, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_perf... Race, well maybe, the political climate is usually too hot to entertain a rational discussion of that.
Statistically, at least last I checked, that statement is absolutely correct.
The reasons for which is a matter of some debate, but the fact will resist any and all efforts to change it by way of insulting its speaker.
Were it someone relating this in a less analytical way, that sentence would read "People with higher IQs are not necessarily 'superior'". Which is also true, as it happens.
For anyone interested in the potential reasons: one of the most posited ones is that the creators of the tests are inherently biased. i.e. if someone creating an IQ test is a white male, chances are white males will have an advantage on the test.
This has some degree of experimental evidence behind it, I remember in one of my psych classes we learned about a study where test creators tried to create tests [and succeeded] where certain races or locales would score higher [primarily by having people in those places or people of that race create the tests]. It's very hard to create a "general intelligence" test that isn't biased in some fashion [and many say it's impossible]
Oh, good. This again. Curtis has stated publicly, "I am not an 'outspoken advocate for slavery,' a racist, a sexist or a fascist." See: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam...