"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." - Henri Bergson

After watching Dave Greene and King Crocoduck, with whom I strongly disagreed, I thought it necessary to engage with one of the key proposals presented by King. He appears aware of issues related to resentment-based ideologies in the West and their impact on its native populations. As appropriately pointed out by JacquesThree, King's solution to this issue, involving the adjustment of "the ideology people have," appears confusing. I believe part of the confusion surrounding King's proposal stems from the Liberals' (à la James Lindsay et al.) denial of the issue at hand.

To begin examining the Liberal's predicament, we must address the following questions: Do people acquire their beliefs, and are these beliefs contingent on external influences? To answer this partially, I'll start by outlining a basic psychological model explaining how individuals form beliefs. Firstly, an emotional state is possible if and only if there's a stimulus and a sentient being. Secondly, the existence of a belief is dependent on the presence of reasoning. For reasoning to exist, there must be intuition or sentiment, and for either intuition or sentiment to manifest, there must be an emotional state. Thus, a belief will take shape if and only if there's a stimulus, a sentient capable of perceiving it, and a feeling about that stimulus. Moreover, one can further evaluate a belief for its validity. This is contingent on whether the belief can be subjected to evaluation for its validity, i.e., examining whether it transcends mere personal preference. The main point is that a belief depends on an underlying feeling, specifically one that conveys something about the individual's status—a salient feeling.

To grasp the initial aspect of the posed question, one must delve into the mechanism by which a group assimilates a belief. Simply put, a potent, well-coordinated, and proficient smaller group wielding influence can guide larger, less cohesive, or adept groups. They can furnish a stimulus, encapsulated in a belief system or ideology—a proposal. However, this influence is only effective if the larger group harbors a sentiment or feeling regarding the suggestion, allowing the belief to take root. To clarify, let's revisit part of the proposed psychological model: A belief won't form unless a group of individuals tends to feel something about the proposal.

So, where does the feeling come from? In some sense, we can consider one's feelings or the feelings a group tends to have as being salient to them. The feeling's ability to be salient is reciprocally shaped by one's life history, their people's (family, ethnicity, race, group, etc.) history, their evolutionary history, and forces of evolutionary selection at least. Through these forces, we can say one's feeling about something or the feelings a group may tend to have about something, whether they regard it as salient, is reciprocally emergent. The more cooperative and cohesive group can tap into this emergent feeling, sentiment, or intuition. However, while the suggestion as stimulus (i.e., belief system or ideology) may give rise to a sentiment or feeling, allowing a larger group to express a belief more easily, the feeling's experience as an object is also a stimulus, reinforcing the salient feeling. There is a proto-stimulus that may tend to exist within the group prior to the smaller group latching onto it.

Before delving further into this discussion, it is imperative to preface the forthcoming statements. I unequivocally reject the notion of causing harm or administering punishment to anyone based on their immutable characteristics, nor do I endorse disadvantaging individuals by discriminating against them for such immutable traits. During the '90s, as I came of age, and in the early '00s during adolescence, the societal milieu in which I matured did not consider immutable characteristics as relevant criteria for how one should treat individuals. I steadfastly maintain that such considerations are inappropriate. This standpoint is a personal preference, and I am fully prepared to acknowledge this. Contrarily, to argue otherwise is to posit that society's infliction of harm or punishment based on immutable, group characteristics, or the discrimination disadvantaging individuals for possessing such traits, is either inconsequential or even commendable. I do not hold these positions.

Regarding King Crocoduck's proposal, he apparently believes we can reshape the antagonistic beliefs that diverse individuals may harbor about Whites or Westerners in the West. He suggests providing them with a new belief system or framework that can achieve this. However, I disagree with his belief. Their existing frame may stem from the justification of a pre-existing feeling. King cannot simply label that feeling as incorrect or assert that they shouldn't hold such beliefs and act upon them. They still may possess and act upon their pre-existing beliefs about Whites or other groups. The preceding description only outlines the connection between the belief they express and the actions they take from it.

Moreover, irrespective of whether someone has provided them with a belief system that justifies their feelings or rewards them, they may still act upon it because the salient feeling as an object supports their belief, which they can symbolically express and use to coordinate themselves. If this group lacks a central authority (is acephalous), all that's required is someone to latch onto this group's beliefs and direct them. To be clear, the problem King is aware of exists solely because diverse individuals who tend to harbor resentment towards Whites or Westerners, in general, find themselves in an environment where they compete with Whites or other groups (such as Asians or Jews). Additionally, in line with the concept of Liberty, à la the Federalist Papers, which fosters faction, groups will inevitably advocate for their self-interest to gain an advantage over competing groups, resulting in greater societal friction. Until Liberals like King acknowledge this as the problem, they can't be seriously regarded, nor can their proposals.

The Progressive solution to this problem seems to manifest in Equity programs. The goal of these Equity programs appears to be to solve the problem of competition. Broadly speaking, the goal of Equity programs is to rectify the negative, disproportionate impact of systems that have historically discriminated against specific groups, evident in disparate outcomes. The main epistemological problem with these programs is that they are self-affirming; they seek evidence to confirm their conclusion. Still, Equity programs intend to redress this imbalance by implementing positive discrimination in favor of those disproportionately affected, which involves discriminating against individuals benefiting from the existing system's status quo, such as Whites or White Men. The progressives' solution breeds resentment in the discriminated population. On the other hand, the Liberal solution, reminiscent of Coleman Hughes' perspective, leans towards colorblindness. However, the drawback of this approach, emphasizing equality under the law without regard for an individual's group identity, is its failure to address the root of disproportionate outcomes. Various groups may exhibit distinct capacities, manifesting at the group level in diverse life outcomes. When a group consistently falls short in achieving positions that confer status, power, wealth, etc., resentment towards more successful groups may develop. This resentment can be symbolically expressed and seized upon by a small, competent, and cohesive group. Under a Liberal democratic system, it can be used to garner more power, resources, wealth, and status for the aggrieved group, often at the expense of the more privileged group, essentially penalizing the latter for its success.

I don't believe there is a straightforward or pleasant solution to the problem I've identified, except, perhaps, acknowledging that, while not perfectly stable, more homogeneous societies are less susceptible to the intergroup conflict looming on the horizon in the West. However, I do think this problem needs acknowledgment. I had strong reservations about King's proposals and language on these matters because the issue is existential for the West and its people. The challenge lies in encouraging Liberals to recognize the issue's complexity, advocated through their form of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism, poses an existential threat to the West. To get Liberals to acknowledge this problem and earnestly consider solutions that address it as it stands, rather than as they would prefer it (if that's achievable), it's essential to encourage a more nuanced understanding of their perspectives and engage in open dialogue to address the complexities of the issue.

In the preceding paper, I’ve attempted to outline how beliefs develop and how smaller, competent, and cohesive groups can take advantage of pre-existing salient feelings about others. I have highlighted why this problem exists in a multicultural society and some of the solutions proposed for solving these problems, none of which, I think, address the main issue, which is diversity in a population that favors multiculturalism and diversity. I believe Liberals need to address this issue and acknowledge it before anything else proceeds. This end may be achievable through a nuanced understanding of the problem. This paper is obviously a rough analysis of the problem and does not entirely encompass the issue at hand. I am open to feedback and would enjoy seeing further dialogue around this issue. I hope this paper achieves that aim at least.