hbd
The Dreaded Jim is pretty much the most right-wing blogger on the internet. Many of the controversial positions that are now considered inside the Overton window of The Motte, such as HBD and the disaster of the sexual revolution, were first popularized through his blog.
He is legendary for his bluntness, explaining in ten words what others do in ten thousand, sort of like an anti-Moldbug. Readers who are not scared off get redpilled twice as fast as by any other source.
Jim has been doing this for a very long time; the original blog dates back to 2005, the original website to 2002 1998, and you can find mentions of his name on Usenet archives going back to the 90's.
His actual pseudonym is James A. Donald, or Jim for short, but Scott called him The Dreaded Jim once, and it stuck.
Excellent response. We should be friends.
And yes, I endorse all of the above. Mainly I'm not saying more because later in the series (especially in books three and four) I take all this in what would seem to current readers an extraordinarily-surprising direction and I don't want to tip my hand yet.
Men can be more than brutes, and women can be more than whores. Not in Tidus! But we do not live in Tidus. And book two is set in a different world at any rate.
I'm working on (for a very loose definition of "working") a post detailing my thoughts on the psychosocial consequences of HBD on the members of genetically disadvantaged races
Looking forward to it. I touch on this here and there in this book. Different is generally worse. And that holds true even when it's better!
Secondly, we've seen that 'different' can be a good thing when it comes to mates. As a man myself I happen to feel greatly appreciative of certain specific feminine differences! But even among potential mates, 'different' is still often a bad thing.
Consider the position of an organism looking for a partner. First it encounters a potential mate which is different in terms of being noticeably inferior. This is obviously a bad deal, especially for females, who have sharply-limited reproductive potential. Mating with an inferior organism will produce inferior offspring — quite contrary to the entire point of the reproductive exercise! But then it encounters a potential mate which is different in terms of being noticeably superior. Great, right?
Alas, no. At least, not usually.
This new potential mate isn't interested in coupling with our prospective organism. Why would it be? We just saw that this wouldn't make sense. So instead, the superior organism will go on to find another superior organism, leaving ours alone and very probably heartbroken. Ours may, in time, find something at its own level — but if there are superior ones reproducing out there, their offspring are likely to supplant and thus extinguish those of our organism.
From chapter one.
Sloot
1d ago
And what we're seeing is instead that it's all more complicated than we thought it was, and definitely isn't traceable to US Census category levels of resolution.
Who’s this “we”?
It’s not that complicated at all and broad racial categories work well, especially for the topic of black American (lack of) average achievement. Despite decades of goodthinkers muddying the waters, making excuses, and performing interventions on behalf of black Americans, the standardized test score gap remains substantial between black and white Americans, and even moreso between black and Asian Americans.
Furthermore, "high socioeconomic status (SES) blacks do no better (and often worse) than low SES whites, whether measured by their parents’ income or their parents’ educational credentials," and the pattern is even more drastic between blacks and Asians. A similar phenomenon holds for homicide rates. This is peskily consistent with the HBD hypothesis and peskily inconsistent with the blank slatism.
gorge
1d ago
And what we're seeing is instead that it's all more complicated than we thought it was, and definitely isn't traceable to US Census category levels of resolution.
Maybe more complicated than you thought it was, but Sailer and the HBDers have talking about these nuances and for a long time. IIRC correctly, it was from the Sailersphere that I learned about interesting racial differences even among the broad racial categories, such as the height advantage and athletic prowess of the peoples of the Dinaric Alps. Furthermore, it was actually sprinting and marathoning that Sailer used as the clearest example of racial differences. Sailer has always said nurture matters as well as nature for most things. But sprinting has far less room for nurture playing a role than does a high-skill and complex game like basketball. I also learned about the differences between East Africans and West Africans and Khosis, and then even among West African tribes, etc. There is a running joke that if a man knows what an Igbo is, he is probably a super racist.
I think you and the OP are making pretty different claims. Maybe the OP, in their TLDR uses dialectic terms, but the problem is you can make a just so dialectical story about anything as they do. If you see the HBDers as wrong so the Yarvinites aren't on the synthesis edge but instead the regressive edge. If you see HBD as right then they're a synthesis of the older pure racism with modern science. This structure can't actually do anything but affirm your priors. You could take this structure and decide that women really are physically the equals of men. And the application to Gaza? What is that even supposed to mean? What is the Thesis and Antithesis of Gaza? It a quagmire, a lose lose situation, not some kind of dialectical question.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1d ago
I don't think she's commenting on some averaged measure of QoL, or at least it's not the true substrate of her objection.
Throughout this post and the last, you've described the increased evolutionary pressure males have gone through to secure mates, in the process honing their intellects, physical skills, and cooperative acumen. Meanwhile, the females' dependence on the males has given them little incentive to develop their physical or mental constitutions, and what pressures they are subjected to is directed towards making them even more pathetic (to use your term) in a zero-sum struggle for male providence. From the picture you're painting, it's not hard to conclude that the masculine condition is fundamentally nobler, closer to the Imago Dei, than the feminine condition. Like with how you describe women's evolutionarily adaptive tendency to embrace their conquerors, the thought of such perfidy being engrained into the female psyche naturally lowers one's perception of them as a group and might justifiably invoke self-loathing of the type exhibited above.
Actually, this reminds me of something. I'm working on (for a very loose definition of "working") a post detailing my thoughts on the psychosocial consequences of HBD on the members of genetically disadvantaged races (spoiler: pretty devastating), and why the usual refrain of "you're [one of the good ones], why do you care?" is utterly ignorant. Your use of the terms "genetically inferior/superior" suggests that your thoughts on this matter might be more similar to mine than the median Mottizen, so I think you're better primed than most to empathize with HereAndGone's lament.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1d ago
You posted a wall of text that amounted to "Suck it, HBDers, your forbears were wrong in the past and consequently you're wrong now". You didn't indicate which quotes were load-bearing and which weren't, so it seems to me they're all fair game. Anyway, I can't find any of the quotes except in secondary sources written by their opponents much later.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1d ago
There was a time not long ago when the USA was expected to not just win the Olympic tournament, but would have been favored against a combined rest of world team. Now the USA would be iffy against Yugoslavia, and in the last Olympics relied on a starting C who, really, shouldn't be on the USA basketball team.
There's layers of irony. Sailer type HBDers have long offered the NBA as the thin wedge to argue that we accept ethnic differences in some fields, and "evolution doesn't stop at the neck," so we should be willing to accept the reality of differences elsewhere. And what we're seeing is instead that it's all more complicated than we thought it was, and definitely isn't traceable to US Census category levels of resolution.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1d ago
With and Against Yarvin on Cults, Racism, Gaza, and the Danger of Being Wrong
TLDR: Cults and related extremist groups arise when the Commanding Heights of culture and intellect are wildly and obviously wrong about something, opening space for less respectable and reputable groups to be obviously correct. In a healthy example, the Antithesis is quickly synthesized into the mainstream; in an unhealthy example the Thesis stands rigid and refuses to budge, and a as a result the antithesis grows in power and control. Seeing that the Antithesis is correct about one thing, people buy into the whole program, and pretty soon: there’s the Flavor-Aid.
My wife and I have been on a big kick of cults lately. She’s been watching a done of documentaries on cults, running from Heaven’s Gate and Synanon through NXVIM* and Gwen Shamblin. I, meanwhile, have been listening to Daryl Cooper’s extensive podcast on Jim Jones and The People’s Temple. Cooper does a great job of contextualizing Jones within the broader left* and the culture of the time. Cooper gives us the loony fringe left of the time, and how People’s Temple fit into that cultural movement. The insane things the Black Panthers would say, and the credibility they were given. The Weathermen taking over SDS, and actually going out to start a revolution. How insane everyone was, that Angela Davis would endorse People’s Temple, and call Jonestown in some of its last days to talk to Jones and encourage his people to hold the line against capitalism/racism/etc.
But what Cooper also does a great job of is showing the racism that the Panthers and the People’s Temple and their supporters active and passive were all reacting against. He starts the work quoting extensively from Isabella Wilkerson on lynchings in the South, the resulting Great Migration to the North, and the racism faced by blacks in Northern cities like Chicago. The violence in Cicero against a college educated father trying to move his family into a better neighborhood, where he could pay lower rent and have room for the piano they bought for their daughter.** He movingly talks about MLK and Selma, and the violence that lead to the rise of SDS and the Black Panthers.
I never realized how much of People’s Temple’s work was devoted to race issues, and how much of the congregation was black. Which, in light of recent conversations, has me thinking about how People’s Temple and similarly insane groups were enabled by American racism. They were handed a public issue, in which the mainstream was quite obviously morally wrong by its own standards and factually wrong in its claims. This enabled a malignant narcissist like Jim Jones to be correct about one thing, which caused a lot of people to listen to him about other things. I think people don’t appreciate this, on either left or right, because they don’t remember that…
Racists Really Did Believe in Racism
Curtis Yarvin in a recent podcast appearance talked about recent studies published in Nature indicating significant genetic contribution in sub-Saharan African genomes from an unknown hominid species, theorized to have diverged from modern humans before Neanderthals. Yarvin strongly implies, though he does not outright state, that this contribution indicates that sub-Saharan African populations are other than or less than other humans, and then moves on from the point quickly. Yarvin jokes that:
It's strange because it reminds us of our racist Uncle Roy and inevitably reminds us of our racist Uncle Roy who is not a reader of Science magazine. How did he get this information? How did he know? That's the question we have to answer.
This was the outright expression of something I’ve been thinking about for a while. A pretty frequent argument seen in right wing or putatively trad spaces: our ancestors knew these things, their superstitions were suppressed by a movement of the evil or the idiotic who forced us to pretend that things that aren’t true are, that the emperor had clothes, but we who can notice can look at the facts and the science and realize that they were true all along. But this ends up, inevitably, being an act of sane washing of the opinions of racists of the past. The modern HBDer like Yarvin takes a defensible compromise Motte, then declares Uncle Roy’s Bailey to be fully under control!
Much as atheist materialists try to rewrite history by assuming that all examples of religion are really cynical efforts to achieve material benefit, both racists and anti-racists of today sometimes do the same with racism. They soft-pedal the racist beliefs of American whites circa 1776-last week. HBDers sanewash their predecessors, talking about bell curves and averages and standard deviations. Wokes paint the racists of the past as purely evil, bent only on preserving their own selfish social and economic privileges through a devious and cynical set of schemes to keep the obviously equal (or brilliant) black man down. A certain breed of online dissident rightist will even buy into the woke framing, and try to sell racial segregation as a neutral social technology, that reducing diversity is necessary to conjure up social trust or something.
When the reality was, racists of the past were genuinely racist, they really did believe that the blacks and Jews etc. were inferior. And not just inferior on average within overlapping bell curves, or in specific metrics, or as a result of cultural conditioning. White racists often believed that every black was inferior in every way to essentially every white American. Consider, for a moment, the dialogue on sports pre-Jackie Robinson. The color line in sports is generally presented today as something done specifically to be cruel, to keep superior black athletes**** from getting their proper respect, to keep social lines intact. For the most part, if you ask those who created and upheld these lines, they genuinely thought that blacks couldn’t compete. The goal wasn’t to keep blacks from beating whites, it was to give blacks a League of their Own where they could compete without getting blown out by superior whites.
Before Jack Johnson, the assumption was that the greatest fighter in the world must be a white man. After all, the white man had outfought every other race, had the world in subjugation in 1900, how could it be otherwise than that he would win in the ring? Among the first great African American sportsmen, Johnson was the first black heavyweight champion of the world. He is celebrated for managing to break the color barrier, after pursuing the white champion across countries and borders trying to force him to fight, but few remember that beforehand most white experts doubted he could do it at all. Harper’s Weekly in 1910 argued that “The superiority of the brain of the white man … is undisputed by all authorities… [A] white man fighting with a negro … ought not to be defeated if the contest be prolonged.” The same logic lead the Washington Post to argue about a hypothetical meeting between black champion Jack Johnson and white hope Jeffries “If Jeffries ever meets Johnson and is in his old trim, experts believe that ‘Texas Jack’ will not last more than ten rounds.” Jeffries and Johnson did meet, after years of intrepid effort by Johnson to bring him to the ring, and Johnson won despite a ruleset that allowed for up to forty rounds to be fought. The Grey Lady must have been worried sick after, the editors at the New York Times had openly speculated before the fight that "If the black man wins, thousands and thousands of his ignorant brothers will misinterpret his victory as justifying claims to much more than mere physical equality with their white neighbors.” The editors had set the stakes, and Johnson had delivered. Uncle Roys across the country wept, gnashed their teeth, and searched for a Great White Hope (the origin of the phrase) who would set things right by winning the heavyweight belt. They would mostly be disappointed until the millennium, outside of Sylvester Stallone movies.
Baseball, America’s pastime, was next. I’ve written before about how important Jackie Robinson was as a civil rights figure. Today he is mostly remembered as a social hero, but much more than that he was a baseball player, a true talent hall of famer with the WAR and the .400 OBP to show for it. He was great and his greatness proved the doubters wrong. Fred Lieb felt that Black ballplayers lacked the stamina to hold up to a 154 game schedule, or the refinement to handle the professional game at the highest level. Grantland Rice said the negro couldn’t handle the mental aspect of Major League ball, while Hugh Fullerton and Cap Anson often stated they lacked the discipline to stand the strain of the big leagues. Joe Williams in the New York World Telegram argued bluntly that: “Black players have been kept out of big league ball because they are, as a race, very poor ball players[,]” and would go on to say that "The demands of the Negro often bulk larger than his capabilities.” In the Sporting News J. G. Taylor Spink said of Jackie Robinson when he was in the Dodgers minor league system that “at 26… were he white and a polite college player, [he] would be eligible for a trial with one of the Brooklyn B farm organizations[,]” while Dan Daniel said “[Robinson] wasn’t of International [minor] League caliber.” Jackie Robinson would go on to put up a purely statistical Hall of Fame career and finally lead the Dodgers to the World Series. Robinson’s performance disproved
Despite the rise of the black athlete in mid century America, one spot where whites held out until recently was at quarterback in football. Bear Bryant, arguably the greatest college coach of all time, said that “The quarterback has to be a leader, and I don’t think a colored boy can do the things we need done at quarterback;” while Fran Curci of Kentucky told the NYT that “They’re great runners, but when it comes to reading defenses and passing, I don’t think the coloreds can handle it; and an anonymous NFL coach as late as 1978 felt comfortable telling Sports Illustrated that “The quarterback position requires more thinking than running, and that’s why you don’t see many blacks there. They’re not thinkers.” There wouldn’t be any black QBs in the pro game until the 80s, and they would remain a curiosity until the 2010s. Only in recent years have we seen black QBs break out of the running QB mold (and arguably seen teams overrate black QBs perceived as Athletic over white QBs perceived as statuesque pocket passers).
I’m sticking with sports because they’re easy, and the results are statistically obvious on the field. I hope I won’t be accused of consensus building when I say that we could dig up innumerable Uncle Roys saying Thurgood Marshall could never make it as a lawyer or judge, that there would never be a great black novelist or musician, that no black man would ever reach the rank of general in the US Army, or perform heart surgery. But that would be exhausting and boring. The sporting examples are enough to prove the point: our racist Uncle Roys, or perhaps Uncle Roy’s racist great uncle Roger, weren’t of the opinion that there were mostly-overlapping-bell-curves with different averages, they were of the opinion that blacks couldn’t compete with whites in any field.
Turn again to the same topic with regards to women. I’ve often seen it said on here that until the rise of Feminism and then of TRANS, everyone intuitively and obviously knew that women were about 35-40% weaker than men, that they would never come within 20% of men’s performance in sporting events. This is, again, sane washing history. When Bobbi Gibb tried to run the Boston Marathon in 1966 (when, for context, my father was in college), race director Will Cloney rejected her on the grounds that women were “physiologically incapable” of running 26 miles. Other observers theorized that her uterus might fall clean out. This year, the difference between the men’s and women’s winners in Boston was less than fifteen minutes in a total time of just over two hours. This is not what Uncle Roy predicted, and to pretend that fifteen minutes is closer to “her uterus falls out” than it is to equality strikes me as odd.***** The famed tennis Battle of the Sexes is often derided today, don’t you know that he was out of shape and old, that Serena and Venus in their primes couldn’t take some minor league nobody in tennis, etc. What this ignores is that the Uncle Roys of the world really believed that Billy Jean King didn’t stand a chance, that any professional male would slaughter her. The result was genuinely shocking to a great many people at the time.
This brings us back to the man himself, Curtis Yarvin. When imagining a coup-complete solution to the problems of the modern United States, Moldbug pictured the key tool to destroy his nemesis The Cathedral as an alternative truth telling service he labeled the “Antiversity.”
If you identify this as a case of circular reasoning, you are right. More precisely, it is a case of game theory—even more precisely, a coordination problem. The only way to break this cycle is to create a Schelling point: a credible and precise alternative. A red button. So this is the strategy. What, exactly, is this mysterious device? In the First Step, we do not replace all of USG. We just replace its brain— the University. With a new device we call the Antiversity, which is pretty much what it sounds like it is. Here is a summary: The Antiversity is an independent producer of veracity—a truth service. It rests automatic confidence in no other institution. Its goal is to uncover any truth available to it: both matters of fact and perspective. It needs to always be right and never be wrong. Where multiple coherent perspectives of an issue exist, the Antiversity must provide all—each composed with the highest quality available...The power of a truth service is its reliability. It may remain prudently silent on any point; it must err on none. The thesis of the Procedure is that if we can construct a truth service much more powerful than USG’s noble and revered ministry of information, we will be able to use it to safely and effectively defeat USG. Indeed, I can imagine no other way to solve the problem. Once this device of great veracity, the Antiversity—expressing not only razor-sharp analytical intelligence, not just exhaustive learning, but also great prudence and judgment—is fully armed and operational, it is straightforward to ask it the question: chto dyelat? What is to be done? What is the sequel to the coup d’état? What is Plan B?
His core idea is that the Antiversity would present all facts, including the ones that are inconvenient for the NYT or for Harvard, the Antiversity will be correct in its statements and predictions while The Cathedral will be wrong, and that as people recognize this they will notice what is going on around them and this will bring down The Cathedral and bring in a more sane regime. I’ve always found this a compelling argument, as I find many things Moldbug said. The conflict lies between Yarvin’s prior Moldbug arguments, and his current championing of your racist Uncle Roy, in that Uncle Roy and his arguments lost his credibility by more or less exactly this process. Uncle Roy predicted that Jack Johnson would lose, that Jackie Robinson lacked the discipline to play in the majors, that women couldn’t run 26 miles, that no woman could beat any man in competitive tennis. He was wrong every time, lost his credibility, and was dismissed as a crank, his views ignored or reengineered into imaginary social boundary keeping or capitalist exploitation.
But in the process, a lot of people became extremists or joined cults. The People’s Temple, Synanon, The Weathermen, the Panthers, the Red Army Faction, SDS. Their best recruiting tool was the purported racism of the establishment, this issue on which the establishment was obviously incorrect, being proven incorrect regularly. Cult leaders like Jim Jones used the racism of society as a recruiting tool, as his most powerful recruiting tool. Jim Jones used the obviously incorrect stances of millions of Uncle Roys to convince his followers that they should look for alternate sources of truth, sources like Jim Jones. That they should trust Jim Jones in all things, and even when Uncle Roy points out all the weird shit going on with Jim Jones he lacks credibility because he was wrong so many times, and Uncle Roy isn’t even around to ask what’s in the Flavor Aid.
The cults were the flower of this phenomenon, but the fruit is our modern world, where people genuinely think that men and women are physically equal if women only tried harder, and citing simple statistics and repeatable studies is verboten, for fear of sounding like Uncle Roy. The modern absurdities are born of overreaction to the absurdities of yesteryear. We must be careful not to overstate our cases and produce yet more absurdities, circling a Hegelian drain.
Which brings us to the other great recruiting tool of the 60s-era cults: Vietnam. Vietnam was a botched abortion of a colonial war, born in deceit and confusing esoteric doctrine, carried on in lies and half measures, brought to an embarrassing defeat after extended flailing and extensive murder of innocents. The establishment was always wrong on Vietnam, and always obviously wrong, and it destroyed the credibility of the establishment when Nixon’s conversations with Kissinger made clear that the establishment itself knew that they were wrong. Nixon knew the war was lost when he reached office, and continued it out of a strategy of achieving a “decent interval” before surrender, or occasionally bombed Laos or Camdodia in a half-hearted attempt to turn the tide.
Today’s absurdity is Gaza. A carnival of cruelty, with no obvious exit strategy. Israel has never had a real theory of victory, no one has yet offered a real plan for Gaza going forward, a few Israeli cranks on the right wing will at least attempt to forward real plans for genocide or ethnic cleansing, but mostly everyone still talks about a two-state solution that will obviously never come to be. Israel will not allow any group that could govern Gaza to govern Gaza, will neither absorb Gaza nor let it go, will neither integrate the Palestinians nor murder them in numbers significant enough to achieve population reduction. Gaza is kept in desperate famine, but not exterminated; it is kept miserable but not destroyed. And the vast majority of US politicians stand with Israel, and are more concerned with campus no-no words than with ongoing physical cruelty to no obvious end.
But what the lessons of Uncle Roy and Jim Jones should teach us is that being wrong for a long time in public is dangerous. It can destroy your credibility, it can overthrow regimes, it can lead to a reaction much worse than the problem ever was to begin with. The dynamic of truth-telling as revolutionary act that Yarvin purports to espouse, is most dangerous when the regime chooses to be obviously wrong.
We need solutions in Gaza, however brutal they may be they must be logical. We need to stick to facts, to stick to truth, to stick to principles. To do otherwise creates openings for things that are worse than we can imagine.
Footnotes
*While Cooper spends a lot of time denigrating groups like the Weathermen and the Black Panthers, people who try to deride Cooper as a simple racist clearly haven’t consumed much of his content, where he’ll quote pages of Isabella Wilkerson or James Baldwin at you. That said, I warned my wife before recommending the work to her, the one thing Cooper did that was in poor taste: he should not have tried to do various blaccents when reading primary sources, it sounds ridiculous and embarrassing.
**Places like Cicero would provide some of the inspiration to the play A Raisin in the Sun which I saw performed locally a few months ago. The play was extremely well acted, the plot orients around a similar black family who put a down payment on a house in a white neighborhood, only to be approached by the Clyburne Park Improvement Association with an offer to buy them out of the contract at a higher price than they had paid originally. The conflict over whether to take the money or not results in a moving soliloquy from the male lead, in which he imagines his conversation with the whites who want to keep them out:
MAMA Baby, how you going to feel on the inside? WALTER Fine! … Going to feel fine … a man … MAMA You won’t have nothing left then, Walter Lee. WALTER (Coming to her) I’m going to feel fine, Mama. I’m going to look that son-of-a-bitch in the eyes and say— (He falters)—and say, “All right, Mr. Lindner—(He falters even more)—that’s your neighborhood out there! You got the right to keep it like you want! You got the right to have it like you want! Just write the check and—the house is yours.” And—and I am going to say—(His voice almost breaks) “And you—you people just put the money in my hand and you won’t have to live next to this bunch of stinking niggers! …” (He straightens up and moves away from his mother, walking around the room) And maybe—maybe I’ll just get down on my black knees … (He does so; RUTH and BENNIE and MAMA watch him in frozen horror) “Captain, Mistuh, Bossman— (Groveling and grinning and wringing his hands in profoundly anguished imitation of the slowwitted movie stereotype) A-hee-hee-hee! Oh, yassuh boss! Yasssssuh! Great white—(Voice breaking, he forces himself to go on)—Father, just gi’ ussen de money, fo’ God’s sake, and we’s—we’s ain’t gwine come out deh and dirty up yo’ white folks neighborhood …” (He breaks down completely) And I’ll feel fine! Fine! FINE! (He gets up and goes into the bedroom)
This was a small theater, a black box set up with maybe a hundred people, so I was only a dozen feet from him as he did this. Excellent actor. But, and this actually did make me reflect on white privilege as a concept, I couldn’t help but reimagine the play as a comedy. In the script, they tell the whites to go stuff it and they move in anyway, with the consequences good and bad obvious to the audience. But in my mind, if I put money down on a house, and someone came asking to buy me out for more, I’d do nothing but ask for more money, there’s some price at which I’d absolutely take the money. Obviously if I got a really good deal to start, they’d have to really pay me out, but I’d absolutely sell to them at some price. And I’d be trying to convince them that I didn’t want to sell, and that they really really didn’t want me to live there, to pump up the price.
And this is where it ought to be a comedy, Walter Lee imagines himself getting on his knees before the White Man, degrading himself, calling himself nigger, begging; he imagines this is how he will be able to take more from the white man. When that’s the opposite of what he ought to do to get more money out of the Clyburne Park Improvement Association! When the CPIA shows up, they should be blaring the most obnoxious Negro music they can find in 1959. Walter Lee should be telling them that while he appreciates the offer, he is really looking forward to having the house in Clyburne park so he can have all his friends over for barbecues, and that he just couldn’t accept their number. Meanwhile, Walter Lee ought to be inviting all his blackest friends over to jump in and out of the apartment at random to “talk business” while the CPIA is there, hinting darkly at how the house in Clyburne Park will be perfect for their “business” and how all the customers will be able to find the house easy and park all over the neighborhood. Beneatha and Ruth should dress like whores, hell have the grandmother wander in half dressed and drunk. Beneatha’s African boyfriend Asagai*** should show up in a loin cloth with a spear yelling unintelligibly in gibberish, while Beneatha’s rich respectable colored boyfriend George will bring over a car load of his black fraternity brothers, all drunk on malt liquor, and start a fight with Asagai. In the midst of all this negro ruckus, the respectable suburbanites of the CPIA, terrified of this kind of family moving into their neighborhood, double their offer to Walter Lee, who sighs and accepts it. The CPIA YTs scurry out, and the blacks collectively break character and laugh together at how they hoodwinked the Man.
The fact that this is the obvious way the story should end, says something about my relationship with racial pride as a white person.
***I imagined Asagai in all his appearances as Barack Obama’s dad. Chicago university in 1959 is about when he would have been around. It added spice to the dialogue if you thought about Asagai later marrying a white bitch and leaving town, ditching her with the baby Barack. This isn’t strictly accurate, but Asagai as an archetype is literally Obama pere.
****Black American superiority in athletics is also rapidly being revealed as a myth. The various race scientists proclaiming it are too numerous to discuss here in my fourth footnote to an already overly verbose comment, but Jimmy the Greek has turned out to be wrong in addition to being rude. Black athletic dominance was a fact of life in the late 90s, but it peaked around the early 2000s and has been in decline ever since, across all major American sports (other than Hockey, which never had any black players). When I was a kid, it was basically understood that there would never be another white heavyweight champ outside of Rocky movies, never be a star white halfback in the NFL, never be a dominant white NBA MVP. As with the ascent of the black athlete, the decline started in boxing, moved to baseball, and has since started to show up in football and basketball. Russian/Ukrainian fighters have mostly dominated the heavyweight championship since the fall of the USSR, with the odd Irish traveler or Mexican thrown in. The percentage of black (African American) players in Major League Baseball peaked in the 80s at around 20%, and now sits at 6-7%. The percentage of black NFL players peaked in the early 2000s at 70%, and now sits just over 55%, with notable recent white stars at traditionally black skill positions like RB, WR, and CB popping up literally for the first time in decades. The NBA, of course, remains predominantly American black by numbers, but the rise of slavs like Jokic and Doncic has punctured myths, and the Serbian team took the US olympic team to the brink without a single black player. Racist myths are being punctured, here. Were I Ibram X Kendi, I would be trying to get Cooper Dejean and Christian McCaffrey on a podcast. We desperately want athletic success to be ethnic in nature, genetic in nature, but we’ve gotten it wrong every time. Basketball was once thought to be a great sport for Jews because it offered so many opportunities for trickery and deceit. But, of course, the Jews among HBD believers argue that Uncle Roy was right about the blacks, but wrong about the Jews.
*****Though this may be just be a case of appropriate username. I’m pretty sure my uterus would have fallen out if I had one.
I think you are giving him too much credit. I'd consider Vox Day more influential than Jim, and neither of them are really well-known outside the highly politicized Very Online. I am skeptical that Jim was the first to "popularize" HBD or criticism of the sexual revolution.
More options
Context Copy link