Marginalization as Obscurantism

The pseudoscientists use the words ‘marginalization’ and ‘marginalization’. From Social Exclusion (on the SJW Encyclopedia):

Social exclusion, or social marginalization, is the social disadvantage and relegation to the fringe of society. It is a term used widely in Europe and was first used in France.[1] It is used across disciplines including education, sociology, psychology, politics and economics.

Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or entire communities of people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration within that particular group[2] (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process).

Alienation or disenfranchisement resulting from social exclusion can be connected to a person’s social class, race, skin color, educational status, childhood relationships,[3]living standards, or personal choices in fashion. Such exclusionary forms of discrimination may also apply to people with a disability, minorities, LGBT people, drug users,[4] institutional care leavers,[5] the elderly and the young. Anyone who appears to deviate in any way from perceived norms of a population may thereby become subject to coarse or subtle forms of social exclusion.

The outcome of social exclusion is that affected individuals or communities are prevented from participating fully in the economic, social, and political life of the society in which they live.[6]

Marginalization is an overloaded term used by social pseudoscientists to frame the group under discussion as victims. Marginalization is a process that is performed upon someone. This brings up the concept of agency: the argument is that victim classes lack agency (the ability to act). Marginalization is such a term that removes agency from the groups under discussion. This is the loading. If the victim class lacks agency, then logically it follows that there are agents acting upon the class (the victimizers). Marginalization is defined by the social pseudoscientists as a form of victimization or oppression, which is the process of an agent acting upon those who lack agency.

These loaded terms: oppression, victimization, marginalization are obscurantist techniques: they are an attempt to hide something? But what?


Humans can be roughly divided into classes. We build social hierarchies based on these classes. Class or caste is a common feature of many societies today, but in the West there was a reaction to aristocracy. The middle and lower classes murdered their upper classes (the aristocracy) and then attempted justify this murder with a lie: the denial of the existence of class.

Marxist theory contains an attack on class and advocates re-organization of every aspect of culture and society to remove any differences and achieve the Utopian Classless Society. The Founding Fathers sought to create a form related to a classless society, a middle class society. This was the American project: building a new country on a new continent out of only the middle class and higher. In the New World, more than a 1/3 of the newcomers returned home to Europe, they were the lower classes who could not produce on their own. The Aristocracy of the Old World sought to reduce the numbers of the lower class through selective breeding. This was achieved through manorialism, where only those capable of production (the middle class and above) were granted land, which was essentially equivalent to being granted breeding rights.

The Marxists attempt to achieve their goal by lying: there are no classes. The Founders attempted to achieve their goals through a combination of lying and incentive: all men are created equal and no welfare for layabouts. The Aristocracy attempted to achieve their goals through a combination of lying and incentive: we have the divine right to rule and these are our rules.

Quick Note on All Men Are Created Equal

Keep in mind that the Founders were reacting against Rule of Man (autarchy)(discretionary rule). What they sought was Rule of Law. Any system lacking universal standing, meaning fair and rules based treatment under law, which instead has discretionary rule for some and law for others, then that system cannot be called Rule of Law. For RoL to exist, then all members must be given treatment based on institutionalized rules (law). I believe the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ is an attempt to justify universal standing using religio-moral language, because the Founders at the time lacked the ability to articulate universal standing and its fundamental necessity for the creation of institutionalized order: Rule of Law.

Stop Lying About Class

It’s time to end the lies about class. Classes exist. We have the science. We can measure IQ, which is a rough approximate of class. All men are not created equal: We can create rule of law without lying. The Utopian classless society is an unachievable dream.

Rough Table of Classes (Curt Doolittle’s)

140’s revolutionize INTELLECTUAL (Professors)
130’s synthesize and communicate UPPER (CEO’s etc)
120’s solve and design UPPER MIDDLE (engineers, scientists)
110’s calculate and organize MIDDLE CLASS (white collar workers)
100’s interpret repair and operate (lower middle upper working managerial clsss)
90’s operate, report, but not repair.( midddle working class)
80’s operate (middle working class)
70’s dig ditches and clean. (lower class)

<70 = underclass

The lower and underclass are not ‘marginalized’. They have not been victimized. They have not been oppressed. They are not lacking agency and been acted upon to be placed into a lower position. They were born as lower and underclass.

There are no ‘marginalized peoples’. There are only those classes who cannot function within the system of production and which must be addressed in some way in order to make a functional society.

There is no ‘systematic blocking of access to rights and opportunities’, there is a biological inability on the part of the lower classes to participate meaningfully in the system of production.

Ending The Game

Of course, the end goal of the use of social pseudoscience is always the same: parasitism. To use words to extract resources from society at a discount (it beats working for a living). It doesn’t have to be this way. We can recognize the existence of class and then deal with it. There is no shame in being born in the lower classes, just as there is no shame being born in the upper classes.

The Founders and the Aristocracy were on the right track: the goal is to create a society made up of middle and upper classes (minimizing the lower class components through incremental suppression). This is the upward development of the species. This is true progress: increasing the genetic capital of a population through selective breeding. This is the domestication of man. It is self-directed evolution. It is transcendence. (Note: this strategy is available to all the peoples of the world. Africans and Arabs have just as much genetic potential as the Northern peoples.)

It’s time to be honest. The strategy of the West is that of transcendence. The average Western high IQ is the result of self-directed evolution, of the suppression of the breeding of the lower classes. The strategy of the modern ‘progressives’ is inverted, where the result is to suppress the breeding of the middle and upper classes, to redistribute their wealth to the lower classes, and to import millions of lower classes for short term political gain. This is a suicidal stratagem, and one that the men of the West have every incentive to prevent, by any means necessary. This is the crux of the current political turmoil, as millions of Westerns begin to intuitively grasp the situation. The modern progressive strategy will have the result of devolving the West back into savagery, and could potentially devolve it into a new Dark Age. Europe was on the cusp of an industrial revolution when the last Dark Age overtook it. It took a thousand years to recuperate. A new Dark Age is not beyond the realm of possibility.


Multiculturalism is Balkanization

Multiculturalism is Balkanization

Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with one another.

When you place distinct population groups in competition for resources, then one group will eventually win. Think about multiculturalism for a second, what is it changing from? It is changing from homogeneous states to mixed-ethnicity states, from mono-cultures to multi-cultures.

Humans have naturally migrated all around the world except when blocked by topographic features. We have lots of historical examples of distinct populations coming into contact. Homogeneous states rarely occur from lack of contact. How is it that these homogeneous states (all one ethnicity) come to exist in the first place? Think about that question for a second before you keep reading.

Homogeneous states exist because throughout time, one ethnic group always either subsumes, ejects or kills the other groups. This is humanity. Like it or not. To say that we should not behave that way is to be Utopian,  and is to ignore the reality of human interaction. To think that one could educate populations to coexist peacefully is Utopian. To believe that competitions amongst the human animal can be arrested, that the Hobbesian war of all-against-all can be negotiated, that the evolution of the species can be halted, is disastrously ignorant of the true nature of the human life.

Currently, Myanmar is trying to deal with its Muslim minority through deportation and second-class citizenship. This is actually the nice way to handle it.

If you want to see the not nice way to handle it, just search Genocide.

If you are a proponent of multiculturalism and a cheerleader for diversity, you might want to think about the future of America. Maybe here in America, there will be a nice resolution. We can always hope, can’t we?

Association is Exit

I believe that what I have been trying to address in the last few posts with the phrase ‘group ethics’ and ‘group reason’ is related to the idea of ‘informal institutions’. We are surrounded by informal norms of behavior, which we could call informal contract. For example, when you enter a restaurant you do not sign a contract with the proprietor that you will pay for the meal after you have eaten it, but everyone understands that there is a norm of behavior which we can conceptualize as an informal contract.

Though religions have some very definite rules and order to them, they are not formalized logically into a legally legible format. They are legally informal. We see this in ‘Sharia Courts’, where an official translates Islamic belief into legalism, which can then produce a definitive decision and course of action. Similarly, Catholic leadership interprets Scripture into official positions or policy.

The ‘Separation of Church and State’ doctrine was originally formulated to keep the government from attempting to control the informal institutions of the church, whereby it would control both the formal legal framework and the informal belief system. Among the Moderns, it is often misconstrued to mean that the informal institutions of contract known as the church should have no influence on the formal legal institution (the state), but this appears to be absurd to me. Obviously, the dominant ethny within a state will have need to translate its informal institutions of contract (religious belief) into the formal legal contractual system.

This seems to be the system as it has worked in the past: the group, through thousands/millions of interactions over thousands/millions of lifetimes, formulate heuristics and dicta which are opaque yet functional, then those opaque dicta are translated into a format that is legible to the formal legal system, then the larger legal system can cooperate using the clearly formulated rules. So we see a process for fuzzy logic leading to formal logic. This is Church influencing State. I believe that this is how common law came into being. I believe it would be fair to think of common law as crowdsourced law.

Obviously, if we see the formulation of religious beliefs and opaque dicta as inter-generational risk management heuristics, as rules of behavior which have been crash-tested in the real world, then allowing the State to formulate legal rules based on a single human’s intellectual capabilities, and then forcing those rules on the group system, would circumvent the very crash-testing (debugging process) that generates those beliefs and dicta. Yet, here we are. With an elite religious organization, the Progressives, formulating laws through limited human intellects (individual intellects) then forcing those laws on the populace, completely circumventing the crowdsourcing mechanism. This is the central planning of ethics. Mises rightly found that communism cannot work because it lacks the pricing mechanism, which acts as a sort of nervous system to coordinate production, which is why central planning of an economy is impossible. There are too many interactions to calculate centrally, the calculation must be distributed into a crowdsourced multi-node computational network known as ‘the market’. Yet Libertarians seem to agree that central planning of social organization is possible, neglecting that there are simply too many interactions to account for by a central authority.

Crowdsourcing is a form of ‘group reason’. A groups norms of behavior, informal institutions, and religious beliefs are ‘group ethics’ produced by ‘group reason’, and can be viewed as crowdsourced. The failure of the Moderns’ system is in abandoning the debugging process offered by group ethics, in favor of completely theoretical individual reason transmitted from a central authority.

Perhaps, what we need is the ability to formulate the rules of group interactions. This is a very difficult fuzzy logic problem, one that must be solved, or at a minimum articulated. If we can find the rules of the group-reason/group-ethic/group-cooperation system, perhaps we can then overcome the current notion that the opaque dicta of the group are not arbitrary or ad hoc or blindly reigning traditional custom as Rothbard holds, but are instead incredibly valuable, crash-tested, crowdsourced survival tools.

Is there a single signal, similar to the pricing mechanism, which must be allowed to function freely if we wish to have a functional society? I have an intuition that this signal is association. Individuals decide whether or not to associate with one another. The society then organizes itself into functional groups. All societies are comprised of various group associations based on any number of factors: religious, economic, racial, etc. Multiculturalism, diversity, and race- and gender-based quotas are rejections of free association, they are forced integration, forced association. Free association is not voice, it is exit. It is therefore not dialectical.

Mises’ critique of central planning of the market and the price signal was devastating. Neoreaction needs a similar (simple, clear and explicit) critique of central planning of society. The importance of exit is noted in the Reactionary Consensus: the right of exit must be guaranteed. However, this seems like an aside to me. I am coming to the conclusion that exit must be a central tenet, and it must be realized that free association is exit. The resulting conclusion of the numerous *-realisms listed in the Consensus is that exit/association/dis-association must be a top priority for the efficient self-organization of any flourishing society. It is through association/dis-association that individuals move from non-functional or sub-optimal groups to functional groups. I have an intuition that it is the action of the association/dis-association mechanism through which the individuals of a group form a group consensus of norms and behavior which then become beliefs and informal contract, and is the foundation of group reason and group ethics.