Originally posted on June 15th, 2020.
Last Edited: 29.10.2020
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard wrote a blog post back in 2017 regarding miscegenation. It follows a pretty common formula that I’ve seen of Kirkegaards blogposts. He will quote some aspects of a paper, give some of his own rudimentary comments sometimes with sources, but many times without; ultimately however, after proposing a provocative question in the title he leaves you with no answer at all. This post of his is no different, he proposes at the end, as he’s done before what he thinks should, or needs to be done without wanting to do the work himself. That doesn’t bother me at all, although I cannot deny the feeling of being cheated after following his title. In any case, my example of “what matters” is in regards to only the first paragraph of Kirkegaard’s post:
Generally my stance is that people should date/mate who they want. Furthermore, I don’t personally care much about this question or the future survival of statistical clusters (races). Asserting that there are problems with cross-racial mating smacks of 19th century race thinking. However, it would not the first time people in the past got things right we now get wrong. It would be intellectually dishonest — and particularly inconsistent of me given my interest in the race and intelligence question — not to look into the topic just because it conflicts somewhat with my worldview.
He states that people should be able to date/mate with whomever a person would like to. To someone hostile to Kirkegaard this would seem like an attempt to absolve himself of holding the “wrong views” about race mixing, to me I don’t think it would be untrue to state that when he prefaces the data which he is about to show, he was actually attempting to, in his mind, express true feelings and hopefully avoid defending himself later from any subsequent attacks by those whom regularly attack him anyway. His stated position is obviously a very Liberal one that can be quite tactful. I do think that his Liberalism is sincere, as he has said before that he has a “libertarian default policy” although he could be persuaded with “reasonable evidence” to limit freedom if it was to further “collective goals”. As to what these goals are, or even what his values are on a nuanced level, I do not know. It isn’t particularly important for the point I would like to make, as it extends far beyond just Emil Kirkegaard to those probably more inclined to follow data in a utilitarian fashion.
I would like to respond and refer to each sentence in the above quoted paragraph, and ask some questions to draw a conclusion.
To begin, Kirkegaard states that he is “not concerned” with the future survival of “statistical clusters (races)”. This however is rather strange to me, for someone like him whom is willing to accept “reasonable” data to reach certain conclusions that he considers in the collective interest of civilization (I suppose). Regardless of which races they were (we need not concern ourselves in this respect to specifics) it seems obvious that on a statistical level races would differ widely in various political opinions, identities, outcomes, intelligence, production, skill, creativity etc. and could even be grouped together based on a variety of variables such as the examples previously mentioned, to form a general statistical trend, perhaps not clean cut, but nevertheless indicative of which race(s) would be worth preserving for the sake of the “collective goals” which Kirkegaard values. To me it begs the question as to why he would not also take the data which already exists on races, that could potentially provide a basis for caring about the future survival of “statistical clusters”?
It’s an odd statement for Kirkegaard to make, and he seems rather absolute in making it. To me, this seems like a hypocritical ‘back step’ in his overall “objective” projection as someone who goes by the data, and would, compared to many, especially myself, be a lot more utilitarian in his demand for facts, studies and statistics to guide which courses to take civilization and achieve the maximum results. If you believe that races not only exist, but are functionally different, then if some races differ in ways most statistically conducive to what you value to be important to maintain civilization then surely you must also secure the existence of that race, perhaps, even over the existence of others. I don’t think this is a harsh thing to suggest. If Kirkegaard doesn’t care about racial preservation overall, I do not see why he must suddenly care about it after a statistical analysis which could indicate which races are in fact more worthy of preservation than others based on their level of achievement, and likelihood of success. I am not suggesting any violence or cruelty towards other races, certainly not, as such actions would undoubtedly be immoral. I am only suggesting that the preservation of any race could be considered a matter of indifference under specific circumstances. If you cared about human “progress” (for the sake of it) then one could come to the conclusion that whichever races are deemed not to be meeting the benchmark of statistical performance necessary for further development must not be given the resources or attention, which could otherwise be used to benefit the more prosperous races. This would seem to be the most obvious and objective course of action for anyone who understands that race is real, and like Kierkegaard, want the best for Humanity to develop. If Humanity could be represented, would it not be by the best of us? Would that then not mean certain races over others? It would in a utilitarian sense require such an understanding of the temporal world if there is truth in what can be seen as development. There would have to be an objective basis for what this would be, and would those like Kierkegaard not point to the Western tradition? If so, you must admit that the most prosperous race is the European race if you were to look at human history in the big picture. You cannot in any sense talk about the history of the world without talking about Europe, in fact it makes the history of any part of the globe unintelligible. The point being that if Kirkegaard cares about human progress, then he must – admitting race is real – care about the preservation of certain races that are the most likely to develop the human species. It seems odd to me that he would seemingly contradict himself by ignoring the relevant facts around race and what part it plays in human societies.
Indifference to other races to a certain degree is just a matter of course because the requirement of any people is that they care for own people first, above all else. I would say that when Kirkegarrd claims he “doesn’t care”, this doesn’t then mean other races must converge on each other around the world in the same spaces, if you do not care about the survival of groups, even though you recognize their existence, you don’t then need to endorse policies of diverse immigration, or immigration at all. But as I think I’ve made clear, and will further on; it isn’t possible to recognize the existence of races, their differences, and then claim to be unconcerned about the survival of those races when one of those races, by a number of comparative factors, would even by a slim margin be worth preserving over others.
The aesthetic, the meaningful, not just the material matter very much to myself and other regular people. Life isn’t the sum of function, it is admiration of beauty, of difference and contrast. Races, ethnic groups, cultures and nations must be preserving themselves around the world so our world can be more than just functional – but truly beautiful. Comparison invites pride out of the difference. Universal function and performance means nothing because it is so universal and boring, you barely even notice it.
So why doesn’t Kirkegaard care? Who knows. My assumption is that he doesn’t care simply because if he did care he would be accused of bias, because no doubt, at least to me, Europeans would have an advantage in the game of comparing which races are actually most constructive when building a civilization. Regardless, I am not a utilitarian whom is guided by what facts say. I would support the existence of Europeans even if they were not the civilization builders world history has known us to be. I am indifferent to other races, not hostile, unless they wish to harm my people or oppress us.
Race, as we know, has a deep effect on identity and purpose. To dismiss the importance of maintaining racial groups on the basis of facts or data, as the Left claim when they speak out against the existence of races, does little to quell the innate understanding that they exist and have significance in the real world. This, we’ve seen time and time again, and most recently by the BLM Racial Grievance Mongers.
There would seem to be a contradiction of the facts. The left are wrong on the genetic sides of things, but even if they were right to claim that “races do not exist”, it wouldn’t dismiss the fact that races are important to identity.
To me, race is the symbol of heritage which allows human beings to foster a sense of belonging. Race also is the indication of ancestral geography that determines which peoples we come from and are most likely going to be related to. We know where we come from, where we belong, what is ours and that we exist as a group to advance our own interests in the name of survival.
We’re no longer dealing with the hypothetical non-existence of races as insisted upon by the Lysenkoist Left. The problem with Kirkegaard, and those like him, is that they’re operating in reality, where races do actually exist and have marked differences which are of statistical significance. Which cannot be denied or brushed over. It would destroy any sense of consistency for Kirkegaard, as he has done, to claim he just “doesn’t care” about the further survival of races, when data itself would compel him to do so. It isn’t an insignificant, or even non-factor. Like I pointed out a moment ago, even if it was a genetic non-factor it would still be a very potent social one, which covers extremely broadly populations of the world whom know who they are, where they come from, and what it means to them. You couldn’t overnight (not literally) convince the masses of normal people around the world to suddenly believe everything they know about reality related to their ancestry as suddenly insignificant or not even real. Kirkegaard et al. don’t pretend it isn’t real, they know it is real, yet just do not care. Perhaps in the case of Kirkegaard he doesn’t care if people do or do not care, only that for him it isn’t important. This is a position I could at least understand, although I do not respect it. The point I’m making, is that human beings need stability, purpose, identity, history and meaning to live. We need it in our lives and no amount of data can possibly replace what the vast majority of people experience. Nor can they hope to understand the data, or even be aware of it in the same way those who specialize in it are aware.
Kirkegaard’s comment about the negatives of race mixing potentially conflicting with his worldview makes me feel it is necessary to kind of break down the potential possibilities in regards to Kirkegaard himself, and those not unlike him, but easier to generalize about because I’m not talking about one person.
Someone who derives their worldview from data alone, from my perspective is someone who doesn’t really have a worldview at all. Not to say they do not have principles, that they’re totally unscrupulous, but that they have to go from case to case, consulting the data whatever it may be in order to adapt to the continuously evolving facts about data which can indicate, but potentially never settle any question. I personally find this kind of thinking to be volatile and not suitable to most people, including myself. To live with such uncertainty takes away stability; people generally evolve concrete beliefs and are not flexible to changing their position, and when doing so it causes much mental anguish. Being able to take stock of all relevant information is a privilege that is reserved for a few, as only a few can attempt to do such things, let alone have the time. It’d be a tall order to expect people to fulfil.
Overall it’s just a rocky way for regular people to live their lives. Seeing as this is the case, what do you actually experience out in the real world? You experience the tyrannical force of popular opinion, fashionable trends in which the general public can be lulled into whatever moral fray the politically most influential group decides should be the norm. This all occurs without any resistance at all from the public, and while it might drum up some resistance from the colloquial right-wing, in no time at all their opposition and challenge to debate over “the facts” gets them mercilessly bullied, ignored, and mocked. The vast swaths of people who came out in support of violent black people under the banner of BLM should tell you all you need to know about the willingness of the masses to consult the facts before arriving at a conclusion. The facts play such a little part in everyday politics, it isn’t damn likely any regular person will be persuaded by them or seek them out because the human prerequisite just isn’t there. After all, in the past human beings had to rely on very little to no statistical information to draw conclusions about life and their surroundings, it really shouldn’t be surprising that today that trend carries over, especially because we’re so busy with many other things.
Having said all that, Kirkegaard states that he didn’t want to not look into the topic because it “conflicts somewhat” with his “worldview”. This would mean (or at least indicated to me) that his worldview isn’t entirely derived from the facts, a proposition that might generally conflict with the perception Kirkegaard puts forward about himself.
I know it was surprising for me to read about his aversion to anti-miscegenation, as I thought that he would evaluate the data first and foremost to see what it contributes to our understanding of the world and the actions humans take within it – acting with little thought and not caring about possible conflict in any way, let alone the idea that it conflicted with his worldview. It was my impression that he strives to derive his worldview from the facts, and not a liberal prejudice. That is what separated him, allegedly, from subjective moral standards and hysterical biased leftists. In the end Kirkegaard is really no different to anyone else, he cannot purely confine himself to cold-hard facts, not that he necessary purported to do so, although he certainly presents himself as such a person due to his preoccupation with the facts of various topics. People who concern themselves with facts, I think we can all agree, are people whom generally want to know the truth even if it’s possible that they might come across facts inconvenient to them. So I do not think my impression is far from the truth, if it isn’t entirely truthful already.
Kirkegaard shows us that people who portray themselves as only concerned about ‘the facts’ and want to push their own narrative will claim to be acting out of objectivity but are probably liars. Although not always malicious, but nevertheless untruthful. Kirkegaard at the end of the day isn’t concerned about the facts over miscegenation, whether they show it’s bad or not isn’t the crux of the point I’m making. If miscegenation is bad (and it is for various biological, historical and moral reasons), Kirkegaard in his adherence to the facts wouldn’t on principle be against it, because his liberal bias in fact outweighs the facts and its impact on humanity. To him, it’s more important that people have the individual “freedom” to make these bad choices that affect the rest of us, and our civilization as a whole.
That Kirkegaard says anti-miscegenation “conflicts” with his worldview isn’t to say that he wouldn’t read the data – because he does indeed do that – even though his critiques of the data might well come from an aversion, consciously or unconsciously of having to accept to be true facts that conflict with his worldview. It could be thought however, that the conflict he felt was in relation to individual “freedoms” being potentially curtailed in relation to his general inclination to personal freedom in which “people should date/mate who they want”, which is a possibility; although I don’t think his latter comment was related to the first. His comment about about conflict in his worldview seems to be derived from his antipathy of the very idea that it would be wrong to race mix, that race mixing could even lead to negative genetic outcomes which is what goes against his “worldview”.
The point I want to make, is not that Kirkegaard or anyone who is inclined, in my view, to a kind of statistical utilitarianism must be 100% consistent, only that if being against race mixing goes against their worldview which isn’t totally derived from the facts, then he, or anyone else, cannot then claim that those like myself cannot then be against race mixing as apart of our worldview. I would be against race mixing even if the facts were to indicate some kind of positive trend in mixed race individuals, or even neither positive nor negative trends. Primacy of people, consistency in heritage is what I value. Kirkegaard et al. probably doesn’t value the same thing, but we can acknowledge that we have values which conflict and aren’t entirely derived from any sort of data.
So, what matters?
Does it matter that we have morals? Or that we follow the data? Is data and morality mutually exclusive? Does that matter?
What matters is not answering endless questions, it is the acknowledgement of observable reality, in which we see as individuals that in order to live we must embrace our greater wholes. In parts, we cannot succeed. The data whatever it shows does not matter if the enemies of our race choose to ignore it. Similarly, the data does not matter if used by our enemies to nullify our right to existence, as our existence does not only exist on paper, validated by ivory tower academics. Our plight as a people can only be ignored if we choose to ignore it, like Kirkegarrd does, pretending it doesn’t exist. I choose not to.
And that’s what matters.
 Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Is miscegenation bad for your kids? , April 1, 2017 Archive.
 For another example, see: Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Cross-validating the Human Accomplishment dataset with Wikipedia, 29 January, 2017 Archive. Here you might’ve clicked his post with the idea that you’re going to see Murray’s data reaffirmed by Kirkegaard’s cross validation, but he ends up just going over the varieties of ways you could potentially create an algorithm of some kind that would put together a statistical evaluation of influential people in history from Wikipedia articles. Then he just says what work needs to be done without actually doing it.
 Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Free trade: yay or not? (Review of Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why), 10 July, 2017 Archive.
 People in general would take immense offense at this statement of mine, even though it is just obviously and observably true. This is because in today’s world people are pathologically incapable of accepting anything which to them puts Europeans, in any regard, above other races; especially in the realms of intelligence and achievement. Their mental faculties break down and they’re unable to function rationally. They seek-out constant abstractions to try and avoid this reality about the world. For an overview of European Achievement see, Ricardo Duchesne, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age (Arktos, London, 2017). For a shredding of the new historical trend of Sinocentrism, see, Ricardo Duchense, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (BRILL, 2011).
 John Hirst, Sense and Nonsense in Australian History (Black Inc. Agenda, 2009), Pp. 62
 See this video by the Youtuber ‘Intellectual Embargo’ in which he quotes from studies regarding life satisfaction, identification with family and racial groups: White Guilt is a Joke, April 26, 2020. Archive.
 As Kirkegaard himself knows very well. See: Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, New paper out: Race Differences: A Very Brief Review, 22 November, 2019 Archive.
 This is just conjecture for the time being, although I do have a study somewhere which shows how people, as they get older are unlikely to change their views, that they become more concrete overtime. This is to say that people aren’t evolved to live by continuously changing their worldview in step with data they do not have the ability to sift and process through.
 It’s also worth pointing out that because people cannot hope to go through all the data, that as anyone will have experienced, especially if they’re dissidents, that we come across people who wouldn’t even consider considering our point of view or the logic let alone facts which back it up. These people on the colloquial left are the majority and in a battle with such an obstinate enemy we do not have the power to argue with them. Personally I don’t care much to do so. What we actually experience is a world where facts and data do not have the sway which can influence popular opinion, let alone individuals.