Dots With Destinies

Dots With Destinies


Dots With Destinies Demographic Study of New York City (Red = White, Blue = Black, Yellow = Hispanic, Green = Asian)

The best didactic real-life graphic of racial realism I have ever seen are those colored maps that show the racial segregation of American cities. The maps are stark and the colors bring racial segregation to life. Everyone knows that their neighborhoods are racially segregated but most people probably assume that most neighborhoods are not segregated to such an extent. The maps must have felt like a frontal assault on the values of many liberals. Racial segregation is the way multi-racial societies prefer to organize themselves; and if truth be told, the races would probably prefer a bit more buffer between each other too.

Allan C. Park’s recent essay brought those maps to mind. If group loyalty has a biochemical basis, the preference to live amongst one’s own probably does as well. This preference is probably not as directly reducible as group loyalty; it seems like it would be more contingent on intelligence, and the mind is yet an irreducible maze—but it is merely matter. The more we learn, the less room for Free Will we find: The laws of nature govern everything, including our minds. When many different minds act the same way—in this case, choosing to live with people who look familiar—we can safely assume there are laws of nature immediately relevant.

From an objective standpoint, it is appropriate that those maps represent human beings with different colored dots. We are more than dots but you are also basically many dots moving through space in time on a course that could theoretically be predicted exactly. That different colored people live apart cannot be random; that it is the result of considerable deliberation on the part of individuals does not make it conventional, historical, or accidental. The preference is so strong that it overrides conventional values many define themselves by; it is observable throughout history and apparently universal; and what are accidental appear to be the exceptions.

Racial segregation is more salient than racial disparities in income and intelligence. If people preferred to live with their own IQ percentile or income bracket more than with their own race then those maps would look much different than they do. Whites who marry Asians do not prefer to live in Chinatown. Nor is the preference for one’s own culture a sufficient alternative explanation.  Different races have different cultures because they have different genes because they had different environments. As Derbyshire once said to The Goldberg, “‘Culture’ is a sort of phlogiston or luminiferous æther that sounds as if it’s explaining something, but actually isn’t.” Peace Corp White People who toil in The Gambia quickly become intimately aware that they are dealing not merely with a different culture.

Liberalism teaches that racial segregation is not as it seems; that it is not really voluntary; that it is the effect of an evil cause, and if you prefer it you are part of that cause. Of course the act of personally attenuating that effect is unthinkable. The chasm between the preference for racial segregation and the principle of racial integration must be as wide as any chasm between reality and religion has ever been. Liberalism as a religion with racial integration as a tenet is lived less faithfully than the Church’s teaching on contraception. The principle is believed in without preferring that it were true. The good news is that if the chasm got any wider it would disappear; if our elites put into law a significant program of racial integration the masses would ROAR quickly and loudly. Forty-years of school districts being gerrymandered by multiculturalists has not reversed that preference; it may have only reinforced the reasons in our subconscious for resuming racial segregation at lunch time.

White people who enjoy living in cities with lots of minorities do so because it gives them a chance to celebrate diversity without living too close to it—which is why only rich White people enjoy living in cities. But White people who want to raise families do not celebrate diversity at the risk of experiencing its dangers. They moved to the suburbs and now move to the exurbs and buy a cabin in the country for the weekend if they can. The people who are perpetuating the European gene are not the people whose actions suggest that celebrating diversity is a priority—and the bigger the family the further do they dwell from diversity.

If radical traditionalism is seeking First Principles that address immediate exigencies, we should start by looking at empirical facts relating to those exigencies that imply something important about human nature. In American society, perhaps the most salient of those facts is the abiding reality of racial segregation. It is a preference that is natural for the individual and healthy for the family. The survival of our civilization requires its cultivation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s