Is Racial Animosity Inherent?

[Animalinstinct]

Don’t mean to necessarily stir things up, but I think about this often. Living in a 99% caucasian country, I often catch myself feeling animosity towards the occasional person of color I see in the street. I’m not super proud of it especially since the modern society dogma obviously says this is wrong, but it just feels so primal. This tribal feeling of a foreign threat. Yes on one hand you can dismiss it as primitive racism, but isn’t it inherently in all of us? I’m not a violent person, certainly don’t advocate violence, and I’m certainly not a nationalist or white supremacist or anything similar. I honestly don’t even think very highly of my race or my nation, but when faced with a foreign race element I quickly realize where I belong and come from.

If a group of African persons ventured into any European town one thousand years ago, they would most likely be killed. One a sole basis of primal protection. I think even today for a white person to venture into a central African jungle, or a poor lawless muslim region would very likely result in their death. Because those people still live by their tribal instincts where a foreign element represents a security threat (aside from a looting or a raping opportunity, or what have you).

Now obviously we have been suppressing these primitive instincts for decades, and there’s some good and some nobility and civility to that, but to what outcome? Most if not all multicultural nations have major problems with racial and cultural clashes. These aren’t just extremists, the situation in the US shows just how impossible it is for blacks and white to trully coexist. And I am not talking about violence, but about how race is a factor in everything, in regular people’s interactions and existence. On the immigration side, welcoming of these foreign elements inevitably leads to suppresion if not erradication of the original culture, and I honestly don’t think the immigrants can be blamed for that. They are behaving very human, and do what comes naturally to people - which certainly isn’t assimilation, especially once you’re not such a tiny minority.

So I guess what I am trying to ponder is how much are we all racist on a fundamental level, considering how natural and logical racism seems to be from an evolutionary perspective.

 

[foodandtheworld]

Your post is full of unsubstantiated assertions and projections. Have you even listened to Ray Peat's interviews or read his articles? He has brought up the idiocy of racism and how it's not "natural and logical" (where is your scientific support for this?) at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite. He's explicitly critiqued it as an ideology that was invented to legitimize oppression. His social, political, and biological perspectives form a coherent whole, so I really wonder what aspect of his work interests you, if you are unable to see that.

https://l-i-g-h-t.com/transcript-454
CALLER: What I’ve been seeing, at least on the level of the popular media and the way the idea of genetics is presented, is a kind of genetic determinism, in which the public at large is being led to believe that a gene is sort of individual, almost like an organism itself, the selfish gene and all that sort of thing, which then is responsible for a specific quality or characteristic appearing. And as far as I know, no one has ever proved that genes do anything except organize the synthesis of protein.

RAY PEAT: Yeah. I have – because I guess I have been interested in the subject for more than 50 years, and so I’ve noticed the things going on and tried to find out where they came from. The – in some of my newsletters, I’ll be talking about related issues, but the motivation for a lot of these ideas, around 1910 to 1920, were to stop immigration of Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans to the United States. So they created IQ tests and showed that Russians and Jews and the various people that they didn’t want to immigrate that 85% of them were feeble minded, naturally they gave the tests in English. But these tests were very explicitly designed for racist exclusionary purposes. And many of these people have persisted in universities, the Bell Curve, for example, a real idiot at Harvard was one of the last hangers on. And these people had great success in getting published in science, the leading American science magazine. When I sent a tiny letter criticizing one of these genetic determination of intelligence, I think it was an 8 or 10 page article, I sent about a two-sentence letter. They sent me pages of anonymous referees, one of them – the only evidence that was cited for not publishing my little letter critical of the conclusions – I just said that conclusions have nothing what so ever to do with the text of the article. These cases of anonymous referees rejecting my comment. The only data cited was from Hitler’s racial hygiene got me interested in studying what was going on there And I saw that by studying that period, I saw that Konrad Lorenz was the architect of the racial hygiene, but he created the rationale based on American IQ racism. He created the rationale for exterminating inferior people. Konrad Lorenz was a Nazi. I think it was his last book. He repeated exactly the arguments of his 1942 and the founding papers of genocide. He repeated the exact arguments except he replaced exterminate with some slightly mild translation, but he never repented from this idea of eliminating genetic inferiority.

From the same interview:

JOHN BURKHAUSEN: Do you think people are just justifying survival of the fittest?

RAY PEAT: No. The whole idea of survival of the fittest is basically saying that whoever is in power is the fittest.

JOHN BURKHAUSEN: Right.

RAY PEAT: And whoever is able to say with most force is the fittest. And if you object and they can kill you, they are the fittest.

JOHN BURKHAUSEN: Right.

RAY PEAT: And it basically is tending to create, well, a ruling case of inferiors if they keep their status only on the basis of saying things like, if you are so smart, why aren’t you rich like me. Pretty soon the ruling class becomes degenerate.

CALLER: What you do think of the misappropriation – it seems like the modern – the official ideology, you might call it, of the ruling classes in this country is compounded off misinterpretations of Darwin and Adam Smith basically.

RAY PEAT: Yeah.

CALLER: I personally don’t find the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution intellectually convincing at all myself. But whenever I bring this up, it’s roughly – people look at me as if I suggested that the earth is flat because it constitutes, so to speak,the very pillar of their thought about how the world is organized and operates.

RAY PEAT: Yeah. If you point out – if you start pointing out any of the 1,000 hidden assumptions or 1,000 facts that they are trying to cover up, you get to about two or three of them and then they remove you in someway from the discussion.


Several other interviews where the topic of racism is brought up and Ray Peat critiques its absurdity:
https://l-i-g-h-t.com/transcript-447
https://l-i-g-h-t.com/transcript-389
https://l-i-g-h-t.com/transcript-474

 

[Animalinstinct]

I honestly appreciate the lenghty response, but I think the red cape has obstructed your understanding of what I wrote. Hence almost none of what you responded with has anything to do with my point. Where exactly did you get ‘oppression’ in what i wrote. You call racism an ideology, which is the opposite of what I assert. The US, as an example of a true multicultural society is flat out dysfunctional on a racial coexistence level. I’m not sure if this is the work of 300 milion ideologues, but even if it was, where do they get the ideology, if it’s not tought anywhere, on the contrary, the exact opposite is what’s engraved in every person’s brain since childhood. Something’s not right.

But other than that it’s an interesting interview.

 

[Vinero]

In an era wihout antibiotics, the risk of introducing the native population to novel bacteria which immigrants carry is very real. I think someone posted a thread on this forum sometime ago that unhealthy people are more likely to be racist because the body tries to protect itself from foreign bacteria.

 

[Animalinstinct]

Well what do you know. I feel alright, but I would accept that as an intriguing hypothesis.

 

[Waynish]

Don’t mean to necessarily stir things up, but I think about this often. Living in a 99% caucasian country, I often catch myself feeling animosity towards the occasional person of color I see in the street.

Subconscious bias! Put him in re-education immediately!

"If a group of African persons ventured into any European town one thousand years ago, they would most likely be killed." I don't know if this is true, but there are plenty of places that you can go in the middle east & Africa today where you might be killed (and raped depending on who you are)... Or in the ghettos of a first world country.

Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman - Wikipedia
Millennial Couple Bikes Near ISIS Territory Thinking ‘Humans Are Kind’ and Gets Killed
80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

We don't even need to bring race into this - because it confuses so many people who are happy to talk about different breads of dogs and their personalities, but will out you publicly and try to destroy your reputation if you imply that human races even exist... Animosity among competing groups - races or not - is inherent and real! If you somehow blind yourself to the difference in other's behaviors, then that's your loss. I can't tell whether you're saying you have a problem or not... I don't even think you mean "animosity" which sometimes means ill-will. People who propose some kind of "have a war on hate" are border-line mentally ill to think they can rid the world of a human emotion - and are often more hateful than anyone else. Because they're not willing to admit such basic things in their absolutist relativism, then I think it is laughable that they could be part of a useful discussion on Peat's ideas.

 

[Sobieski]

Subconscious bias! Put him in re-education immediately!

"If a group of African persons ventured into any European town one thousand years ago, they would most likely be killed." I don't know if this is true, but there are plenty of places that you can go in the middle east & Africa today where you might be killed (and raped depending on who you are)... Or in the ghettos of a first world country.

Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman - Wikipedia
Millennial Couple Bikes Near ISIS Territory Thinking ‘Humans Are Kind’ and Gets Killed
80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

We don't even need to bring race into this - because it confuses so many people who are happy to talk about different breads of dogs and their personalities, but will out you publicly and try to destroy your reputation if you imply that human races even exist... Animosity among competing groups - races or not - is inherent and real! If you somehow blind yourself to the difference in other's behaviors, then that's your loss. I can't tell whether you're saying you have a problem or not... I don't even think you mean "animosity" which sometimes means ill-will. People who propose some kind of "have a war on hate" are border-line mentally ill to think they can rid the world of a human emotion - and are often more hateful than anyone else. Because they're not willing to admit such basic things in their absolutist relativism, then I think it is laughable that they could be part of a useful discussion on Peat's ideas.

Good post.

 

[lvysaur]

No.

But obviously people who have never known anything else will think so. After all, how could one understand something that they've never experienced? It'd be like trying to explain women's rights to an ISIS member.

Furthermore, even if you disagree, the genetic nature of race necessarily precludes this being true. There are white people who are genetically closer to brown people than to other white people. White europeans today are more racist toward Arabs (their genetic twins) than toward East Asian people. Black people (Africans) are more related to white people than to other black people (Papuans).

Racists will deny this because racists almost never understand the actual nature of race, and are driven by egoism and social dominance orientation.

Living in a 99% caucasian country

No need to use American neologisms, you can say "white" or "European". I highly doubt your ancestry group has much to do with Caucasians.

 

[Teres]

Race for many is a topic taboo, and for others - the perfect opportunity to push an agenda, especially in a western society. A non-ethno(not race)-centric in it's roots country like the United States is a convenient field for action - either to be genuinely racist or to unceremoniously and shamelessly fornicate with terms. The term racism often is a golden standart and it's used and misused at will. If at some point in the past to dislike a black person for his/her skin color has been considered racist, and it is, today sometimes just to dislike an individual who happens to be a person of color is more than enough. The later presumption - that a person of color can be disliked solely for it's skin color - is racist in it's core, therefore the very same individuals who try to set standarts for what's racist and what's not, seems to be racist.

For an individual to be suspicious towards another individual who comes from a group of people which bears some unacceptable stereotypes (often truthfull) is a natural state of being. Is there someone naive enough who assumes that the average Saudi person is a fighter for gay rights? That person comes from the craddle of global terrorism where homosexuals are hanged, where no national-wide rebellions have taken place, most of the people thare share backward and primitive beliefs and although it may - by some miracle - turns out that the way you look at that person is wrong, your first assumption is fully and rightfully justified. Often beliefs, the environment that person comes from and the way of life he/she leads have the most impact on how you look at him/her. And civilisational clashes happen daily and that's natural. The people I've met who dislike someone else because of a skin-color are less than the fingers of a hand.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Probably. Humans and animals appear to have systems that make them wary of the unknown and also make them attracted to exploring it. Which way the balance tips depends on the individual and the circumstance. Nazism for example seemed to be partly a response to infectious diseases wiping out a large part of the German population. Some native tribes are wary of foreign people, others attack them on sight and others are quite welcoming.

The basic problem of the foreigner is that you can't trust them. You can't judge them because they signal all kinds of weird things you can not understand. They might not even consider you human, and might think it morally acceptable to abuse you. You can't trust them to defend you, and you can't trust them to not commit crimes and run off. The opportunity is the ability to learn something, and that could save your tribe. And of course the ability to trade and make alliances and new friends.

 

[Animalinstinct]

Racists will deny this because racists almost never understand the actual nature of race, and are driven by egoism and social dominance orientation.

So there can be nothing between enthusiastic embracement and ‘social dominance orientation’? That seems pretty extreme.

 

[Melba]

The answer to your question lies in nature every living breathing creature on from birds to bees ,protect their own,their territory and do not mix with any other than their own.

 

[Waynish]

No.

But obviously people who have never known anything else will think so. After all, how could one understand something that they've never experienced? It'd be like trying to explain women's rights to an ISIS member.

Furthermore, even if you disagree, the genetic nature of race necessarily precludes this being true. There are white people who are genetically closer to brown people than to other white people. White europeans today are more racist toward Arabs (their genetic twins) than toward East Asian people. Black people (Africans) are more related to white people than to other black people (Papuans).

1) So someone cannot evolve into an experience past their previous experiences? I don't understand what you're trying to say... So please spell it out. One cannot understand something they haven't experienced, so what is the experience people are missing such that they become dis-identified with self-evidence groups?

2) What's the evidence that, "there are white people who are genetically closer to brown people than to other white people," and more over that it is more than an edge case? Also, how do I know your DNA isn't more similar to a banana's than my own? Just joking!

Race for many is a topic taboo, and for others - the perfect opportunity to push an agenda, especially in a western society... ... The people I've met who dislike someone else because of a skin-color are less than the fingers of a hand.

So what agenda is being pushed? And who is the "they" that are so powerful they can push it while only running into you a few times during your lifetime, as you say.

 

[cyclops]

I grew up in a major US city so was always around people of different races and figured everywhere was like that. I loved it then, and I love it now. I always found myself naturally wanting to be around people who were "different" from me, although I never even thought about it like that. I have friends from my race and other races, and I find all kinds of people attractive. I thing I'd be bored as hell if there was only one race or culture. I really enjoy being around all different types of people, it's just allot of fun for me personally. I enjoy different foods, art, culture, etc. I'm white, but I'd hate to live in a place that was just all white people (and I like white people as much as anyone else- I just like any nice people, not any particular race). I enjoy diversity -- and it makes me happy to see people uniting and make me feel like we're heading in the right direction.

I mean, whats the other option? Gang up, and treat some of your fellow human beings badly and tell people they can't travel and live in certain places? Who wants to live on a planet with that kind of negative, hateful energy in the air - making others feel bad and putting walls up between us? No one is gonna be happy like that. We should all be kind towards each other unless an individual gives you a real reason not to.

And if cultures blend in some places, so what? Something new will be born like it always has. We'll be alright. Things are always changing and growing, that's the nature of things.

First it's Europeans racist against other Europeans, then against other races, once the aliens show up, we'll all unite against them lol.

Not judging the way OP feels, just letting him know that it's not "inherently in all of us." Quite the opposite. I think if you're open and nice to people you can make great friends with anyone. Why wouldn't you if they are good people?

 

[DaveFoster]

White europeans today are more racist toward Arabs (their genetic twins) than toward East Asian people.

Americans of European descent and Europeans have animosity towards Arabs because of geographic proximity and historical clashes between Islam and Christianity; size of immigrant populations; disparities in criminality, specifically East Asians have low behavioral aggression and the lowest crime rates of any racial group, whereas Arabs have a higher incidence of criminality compared to that of Europeans and Americans of European descent, and Arabs also have the highest rates of Muslim terrorism, which garner great media attention and public outcry.

Also, some Europeans, particularly the British have strong negative opinions of Eastern European Slavs, who also exhibit greater criminality compared to that of Western Europeans.

 

[Atman]

Staring into the abyss.

 

[nwo2012]

Americans of European descent and Europeans have animosity towards Arabs because of geographic proximity and historical clashes between Islam and Christianity; size of immigrant populations; disparities in criminality, specifically East Asians have low behavioral aggression and the lowest crime rates of any racial group, whereas Arabs have a higher incidence of criminality compared to that of Europeans and Americans of European descent, and Arabs also have the highest rates of Muslim terrorism, which garner great media attention and public outcry.

Also, some Europeans, particularly the British have strong negative opinions of Eastern European Slavs, who also exhibit greater criminality compared to that of Western Europeans.

By terrorists are you referring to the coke snorting muslim fundamentalists that 'did 9/11" or the the mercenary army fighting the Syrian Army that dont even know which way Mecca is when they prey?
The media attention is not garnered its fabricated.

Back to OP, by design, we are in a way racist in that we identify with our own colour more easily. Immigration is forced on the masses, by design, to cause tribal feuding. Divide and conquor at its finest.

 

[Teres]

@Waynish

So what agenda is being pushed?

"Whites are evil thiefs" is one of the shorter ones.

And who is the "they" that are so powerful they can push it while only running into you a few times during your lifetime, as you say.

The few real racists I've met in my entire life are not a problem. They are few and they're not powerful. Either most of the time they hide that they hate other people for their skin color, or they are racists openly, which turns them into a society's waste in no time.

You don't have to be powerful in order to push your not so bright ideas about life and society. Being a loser in life, having a loud mouth and being surrounded by others like you is enough. These - by the way - are the first shared and common traits between a racist group consisted of white people and one like black-lives-matter - although seemingly antagonistic to each other fundamentally, for both it's a matter of we-and-them, both have a they-complex and individuals from both groups don't hesitate to use hostile speech (or actions) to convince the rest that they're oppressed.

In other words, the victims are countless, but I haven't noticed many oppressors around.

 

[DaveFoster]

By terrorists are you referring to the coke snorting muslim fundamentalists that 'did 9/11" or the the mercenary army fighting the Syrian Army that dont even know which way Mecca is when they prey?
The media attention is not garnered its fabricated.

Back to OP, by design, we are in a way racist in that we identify with our own colour more easily. Immigration is forced on the masses, by design, to cause tribal feuding. Divide and conquor at its finest.

If you must blame someone for instability, then blame corrupt politicians for placing divergent cultures in close proximity. Further, blame war mongering politicians for destabilization in the Middle-East, followed by invitations for the survivors of their mass murder.

Acts of international terrorism began in notable quantity in the years following the the Six Day War, where they increased dramatically in severity after the deposition of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, all to support the business interests of the U.S. and political dominance of Israel and the House of Saud.

The 1967 War and the birth of international terrorism

 

[nwo2012]

If you must blame someone for instability, then blame corrupt politicians for placing divergent cultures in close proximity. Further, blame war mongering politicians for destabilization in the Middle-East, followed by invitations for the survivors of their mass murder.

Acts of international terrorism began in notable quantity in the years following the the Six Day War, where they increased dramatically in severity after the deposition of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, all to support the business interests of the U.S. and political dominance of Israel and the House of Saud.

The 1967 War and the birth of international terrorism

Perhaps you misread my sarcasm. That was exactly the point of my post. The high majority of so-called muslim terrorism is carried out either by patsies, intelligence agencies (the majority by MOSSAD) and such, including the use of predominantly mercenary armies (pretty much what the majority of ISIS actually is under guidance of MOSSAD. The Brookings institute you quote is basically a mouth-piece for the so-called élite' or as I prefer inbred scum of the earth.