Discussing different human groups, whether male vs. female or different races, can often lead to great frustration because there are bad things that are also very true about many groups. On the one hand, some people find it very impolite (and it is, let’s be honest) and would prefer a very toned down discussion or no discussion at all. On the other, some people who have decided to accept the truth as it is may allow themselves to be overtaken by anger and tend to post acrimonious and unuseful comments. I myself tend to the second extreme and don’t view politeness as a valid excuse to deny the reality of the world. However, it is also true that true facts can be discussed in full in a polite and civil manner and that is what we should all endeavor to do. To strike this balance in comment moderation and in policy perspective, I coined the term biotemperance and gave an in-depth description. Obviously, such a policy should aim to not result in increased suffering. Here is the text fo the post:
There has recently been some confusion about how discussions about different ethnic groups can be conducted in this subreddit. Frank and open discussion on any and all ethnicities is and will be tolerated. Period.
However, there is a common concept or principle in the manosphere that is equally applicable to this situation (slightly modified) which I will refer to as biotemperance. In the context of game and relationships there is a discrepency between what men tend to want in terms of love and relationships and what women are able to provide. (read this, then this, then this for more detail) Taking the red pill involves the understanding and acceptance that due to biological instincts women act in certain consistent ways which often lead to frustration in men. By understanding the biological imperatives of women, a man can work within that framework to then create more fulfilling relationships. Men gain an understanding and acceptance of biological determinism in mating with the intent of improving the quality of his life and that of the woman or women he is with. Women can’t be blamed or hated for having the instincts that they do because the man would never, ever be able to form fulfilling relationships with that kind of baggage. Moreover, natural selection has endowed women with these instincts for a reason: it improves her odds of being successful in reproduction. Therefore not only is it necessary to not hold onto hate or blame from a quality of life perspective, it is also irrational in the context of evolution.
In the general case, a good definition of biotemperance:
biotemperance is when the pursuit of knowledge of biological differences between human groups is guided by a moderate temperament and desire for benevolent outcomes for both the pursuer and group under consideration.
I do not suggest that one group should make sacrifices for the sake of another.
I feel the concept is important for the growth of this sub. Western culture is irrationally afraid of HBD as part of the aftermath of World War II. Racial conflict and mass murder figured greatly into all the theatres of that war. Though some disagree with the claims about non-battlefield deaths. After it was over, it is understandable that intellectuals would try to craft the culture in such a way as to prevent such things from happening again. Preventing genocide is a desirable goal. Unfortunately, they resorted to a fiction of complete egalitarianism which, being untrue, is also very unstable. To quote Anthony Edwards
It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.
Biotemperance, if genuinely accepted by neoreaction, should allay the neurotic fears many people have that even talking about HBD is one step away from genocide. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction of fascism when they read this sub, I want to do whatever I can to get rid of that impression.
If and when the egalitarian bubble pops, and neoreaction grows significantly, biotemperance should ensure that whatever realistic steps are taken to improve order in society do so in a humane way. (I am not using the liberal definition. For example, it would have been far more humane for Belgium to have maintained control over the Congo so it could have imposed order. Imposing order through force by colonial powers would have clearly been more humane when compared with the suffering, deaths, rapes and other atrocities since the country became “independent”.)
Biotemperance will be treated as a guideline or suggestion and not a rule. It is not mandatory that you agree with it. You should feel free to disagree with the concept and perhaps post a better alternative if you have one. In terms of moderation, biotemperance will be my main guide for evaluating whether posts are trolls or, less likely, shills. If experience of /r/theredpill is any indication, there are people who would like to create havoc here because they strongly disagree with the DE. One of the tactics employed is to post extreme crazy ideas in order to discredit the overall sub to outsiders. This problem hasn’t happened yet, but if the sub grows it will likely be something that needs to be addressed. If a post strongly deviates from biotemperance (IE advocating genocide) it would be removed. However, I only anticipate applying this in very extreme and obvious cases.
Most commonly, hairs really get raised when Jews are discussed. Most people recoil instantly when any discussion of Jews which is not flattering is brought up. Those willing to discuss potential issues and differences tend to be very angry and to make very uncivil comments. Here I elaborated on my perspective on the Jewish question with relation to the above material. I have updated it with a few extra links.
In terms of the specific conversations that led me to post this, there were several points brought up about Jews being a specially exempted group.
- They form jewish only organized social groups.
- The hire only other ethnically Jewish people at their businesses.
- They form neighborhoods which are exclusively Jewish in New York.
For the second point, no real world example is given, so I kind of doubt the veracity there. The laws imposing racial diversity are applied to Jewish owned businesses as much as any other.
For the other two points, doing this is completely natural to humans. Hispanics do it, blacks do it, asians do it as well. I am not sure why Jews need to be singled out for this, but it is fine to mention that they have in-group preferences as much as any human group does.
I think the real problem here isn’t that various ethnicities have this preference and form these groups, but that whites are socially disallowed from forming similar groups that overtly celebrate white heritage. There are, however, indirect proxies. There are christian religious groups for example.
I would like to point out that a part of reaction advocates ethno-nationalism. To them at least, they are promoting more of this kind of segregation, not less, and if you look at other homogenous societies of high IQ ethnicities such as finland or japan, it seems to be a reasonable model.
(Interestingly, I think Israel might be the only true overt ethno-nationalist state currently in existence. And also they seriously dislike reform judaism. As well they should, since it has a large calvinist flair to it.)
For the most part I have a lot of skepticism when Jews as an ethnicity are suggested to cause a lot of negative outcomes on the society they live in. As I have previously mentioned, IQ testing has established that in general ashkenazi jews score pretty high. High IQ is generally correlated with a number of positive outcomes, especially economic activity.
However, there are other objective measures which could be used. They have low violent crime (murder, rape, assault) rate for example, they have a high rate of stable family formation and longterm maintenance. I have never heard that Jews have a higher than average rate of white collar crime, but in any event I seriously doubt they come anywhere near the level of corruption present in Africa, or in Asia (think china, thailand etc).
On most objective measures that I can think of, Jews don’t score badly on them. So when there is a long rant about Jews that seems inconsistent with these measures, more flags go up for me than would a discussion about homicide rates among blacks which are well known to be much higher than with other ethnicities.
That isn’t to say there aren’t legitimate things to talk about. For example AIPAC has had a significant effect on American foriegn policy. check out this book. However, I don’t think AIPAC could have achieved the influence it did if it weren’t for the Christian belief that the state of Israel is somehow necessary for the return of Jesus.
There is also the fact that Jews are inordinately represented in elite media and financial institutions. Notice that the previous link was written by a Jew for the times of Israel. (Here are some more articles.) And among Democratic donors. Clearly, this level of influence is not consistent with the ethnostate model if this influence turns out to be hostile to the interests of the ethnic majority in a region.
However, I want to point out that these elite individuals are probably not religiously Jewish in any sense of the word. Pizzagate suggests they and other elites, many of which are white, have their own religion. The story of Moses in the bible actually gives you some idea about this. As such, I tend to consider elite banker/media jews to be a fairly separate class from non-elite practicing Jews.
Since these things are true, they can be discussed in the /r/darkenlightenment subreddit. However, acrimony and anger should not factor into the commenting and any comment that includes that on any subject will be removed.
I would like to point out that excessive anger is not healthy for anyone regardless of the cause. Given how messed up the world is, it is understandably a struggle to learn the truth without succumbing to anger and hate. I don’t mean anger an hate in the dishonest terms of the left, but in the real internal sense. Everyone should endeavor to know and accept the truth, and if so inclined to discuss it, from an internal emotional state that is as free from anger as possible. That isn’t easy, but it is a worthwhile practice.