The attack on race represents an overlapping set of arguments which attempt to undermine 3 realities: A) ethnoracial groups can be distinguished from one another; B) there are heritable differences between ethnoracial populations, including cultural affecting behavioral ones; C) members of ethnoraces have ancestral, genetic commonality and, therefore, have ethnic genetic interest.
These overlapping realities were woven into the national/racial/paleoconservative vision of man: I am my ethnorace; we are historically, culturally, and naturally different from other ethnoraces; we have common loyalties; we have common culturalgenetic interest to defend; we are proud of who we are. (To the average SWPL, of course, this is an appalling, primitive way of thinking. To the stereotypical** (German) Jew, this is an appalling way of thinking for non-Jews and a healthy way of thinking for Jews.)
The attack on ethnorace is often a manifestation of heterogeneous motives, motives which nonetheless are cladistically related:
1) Undermine the reality that there are genetically more similar and less similar populations. (e.g. Attack on the race concept — Contra A)
2) Undermine the genetic hypothesis for subpopulation differences in the US and elsewhere. (e.g. Attack on heritability — Contra B)
3) Undermine the idea that individuals of a population have genetic and socioobiologically mediated collective interests. (e.g. Attack on the coherence of race, etc. — Contra A, B, C )
4) Undermine the idea that cultural assimilation works best with culturally, genetically similar populations. ( Contra A, B, C )
5) Undermine ethnic/ethnoracial senses of identity. (Contra A, B)
6) Undermine the moral right of opposing 1-5 (and demonizing those who do voice opposition).
Generally, the anti-national/racial arguments are woven into two distinct visions of the future: a global cosmopolitan one, with what used to be the West at the center, and a international utopian one, with what used to be the West at the center. These represent globalized versions of the US neoconservative and US progressive visions, respectively.
7) Support the globalization, immigration nation idea and defend it from cultural conservative critique. (e.g. Attack on sociobiology)
8 ) Support the cultural marxist view: race + particular culture (as opposed to class + religion, as previously) are the true causes of inequalities; obliterating these will usher in the global utopia, which is the inevitable realization of history. (e.g. Attack on “institutional” this or that)
Countering any of the specific arguments or either/both of the visions requires a multifold counterattack — effectively, attacking back with 6 arms and 3 legs. Ultimately, doing so also requires presenting a competitive counter-counter vision. Which, in turn, can only be done after the specific undermining arguments are themselves undermined. The dialectic must be completed and a new synthesis presented for a new synthesis to be presented and the dialect to be completed.
In previous posts, I worked through a convoluted attack on 2) (and partial defense of B); In the next post(s), I will work through a defense of the race concept (attack on 1, partial defense of A)
**This is indeed a stereotype, no?