I do not know whether natural human intelligence — whether the vaunted “general intelligence” or some specific adaptedness to modern industrial civilization — varies with race. The matter is simply too fuzzily social-scientific and too politicized for me to treat anything as strong evidence; I can make antipredictions only.
I am not one to fear the truth, or to believe that nonsense (typically advocated by those who are defended by the weapons and fed by the engines of Science) that there is no truth. And I am not particularly vested in the outcome either way; one option seems mildly attractive, another explains much, and the third would be strange and disappointing but not something I am unprepared to deal with.
But I am very worried that the claim of the more racist side of the HBD (Human Bio-Diversity, sometimes meaning “scientific racism”) faction is correct.
If they are correct, then it will almost certainly be possible to find strong, convincing evidence that they are correct. And that would be terrible.
(Of course, that evidence might be found even if they are not correct. Science is fallible.)
The word “racism” does not predate the Nazi horror; it’s modern pejorative use to describe race hatred is a result of how fascists made of volkish love and Romanticist solidarity a tool to subjugate the minds of their population, to urge them to make of Europe a plain of rubble and of Israel a heap of ash. Previously, one saw such words as “race problem” and “Negrophobia”. Meanwhile, reactionaries who believe in genetic mental differences between the races often make the claim that the left-wing obsession both with imposing equality and believing in equality even where it does not exist will have disastrous results if pursued in a world where the races are not equal. And this is entirely true.
But behind that truth lies a bitter rot; a demand for justification both of that which needs no justification and that which cannot ever be justified, a rot which is itself the child of the mind of the fascists who ruined Europe, first by destroying the bodies and material works of the land, and then by so horrifying Europe that it has become like the nerd who would be a gallant but fears accidentally creeping on his lady-love. Quite probably some of them are free of it; others are tainted but will not be strongly affected. But it is for the populace, not the intellectual elite of the Right that I most fear the public discovery of the truth.
When I was a naive youngster, I believed that truth was a virtue. But science makes of truth a power, and there is no limit to the depravity of mankind. Suppose that it is found out once and for all that the Latino and African races are inferior, in intelligence, impulse control, or some other matter of genetic adaptedness to industrial civilization, to the Asian and European ones. Or, if we accept the claim (which I suspect is true) that social and visible race is poorly correlated with genetics, that some other historically hated and oppressed subgroup is indeed in some way intrinsically inferior or undesireable.
The truly pure and wise, whether they place their love and devotion in the chalice of their own ruler, their own race, or in that vague, cloudy conception of All Humanity, will do what is best. The unintelligent may find an honorable place doing labor which requires practical skill; those unadapted to abstraction may work the concrete; people may be protected from destructive competitive pressure, or given special schooling to compensate for the ravages of the blind idiot god. All those actions, whether the work of piously egalitarian postmodernists or obligedly noble carriers of the White Man’s Burden, will likely be a drop before the flood of bitter entitlement, hatred, wretched resentment, and condescension that destroys its own virtue.
How many people, who resented the war of the Left, will now feel fully justified in their hatred? How many people, already predisposed to thinking themselves the rightful masters of the universe regardless of whether they have the strength, will decide that they are entitled to the fealty of Africa? How many people, even among the more refined portion of the Right, will ignore the actual benefits of a superior intelligence in favor of a resentment vindicated?
I do not have that much faith in the virtue of reactionaries. I can see the resentment behind their eyes; I can smell the hope for vindication on their breath, even as I know that for the most part they love beauty, virtue, and survival. I know because I once had it in myself.
Yes, long ago, before I was made an Eigenmensch, before I was ennobled, before I even knew the truth, I had gone astray as an angry atheist and hit-piece leftist, someone who cared not to learn what the Republicans might love and protect, nor what iniquities might exist in my own ranks, nor whether there might be any negative consequences to destroying all my enemies by force and violence and instituting my pet plans. I was lower than the lowest reactionary; I lacked even interesting or novel ideas of how to repair the wrongs of society beyond gaining absolute power myself. Yet I being prepared for power, and I knew it not. Sin and internal evil broke my hopes; the full sight of the trap and the doom of idealists, the world of ash confounded me; feminists taught me both the perils of moral courage and the caprices of social power, and so I became a mere pragmatist. I could not sink to postmodern learned helplessness, and so I am today a mighty Count of the empire. But it is by capability and utility, by the Mandate of Heaven, that I rule.
Entitlement is not needed. It is commonly accused; I do not make this accusation lightly and do not intend for it to be over-broad; mere frustrated desire is not entitlement. By the Mandate of Heaven and the right of conquest might new kings arise; by a faithful and very cautious prediction of expected utility might one race hold itself above another; no justification needs the Emperor. Yet I truly believe these people seek justification, just as do their enemies, and I do not trust them with it.
Yeah this echoes my worries exactly. I think that the hbd movement might be right (although they overestimate the intelligence differences*) but the consequences of allowing such knowledge to become widespread might be devastating. It’s a shame because the message of left (treat everyone with dignity and respect) is completely compatible with their being biological differences (I use biological as a catchall term for genetic + prenatal environment – its less controversial than genetic). There was no need to push the “everyone is equal” mantra.
Having said that I do think that the idea of differences, though maybe not genetic differences, needs to enter the discourse. For example poor HIspanics have a lower IQ than whites and this differences is highly heritable. Whether that is because of genetics or early environment or prenatal care is irrelevant. If Hispanics come to the US in large swathes then their children will be at a disadvantage and that does not bode well for the economy, especially if affirmative action is enforced. That’s a disaster! But even Fox News is unwilling to point out the IQ dilution that will result from mass Hispanic immigration (choosing to focus on more socially acceptable but also factually incorrect statements such as “they take our jobs!”)
But ultimately its not the intelligence differences that bother me the most. Its the differences in the sorts of social structures that different groups of people are likely to organize themselves into. In Arabic societies for instance the level of favoritism for family members over non-members is extremely high. Due to generations of inbreeding, they have a strong sense of altruism towards family and pretty much don’t give a fuck about anyone else. That doesn’t mix well with the Western ideals of treating everyone the same and being compassionate to all people. For instance the welfare state works because everyone has the same ideals of “If someone is down then I’ll help them up today and if I’m in trouble then they will help me”. So abuses of the welfare state haven’t been egregious in Western society. Add in highly nepotistic arabs into the mix and the system doesn’t work so well. They take from the welfare state but have no compulsion to give back: why should they? Its not in the culture to do so. Whether this effect is genetic or merely heritable is an open question – hbdchick thinks its genetic not that I care:
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/start-here/
Either way, attempting to integrate arabs into Western Society is going to lead to pain and anguish. Its not impossible mind you. Cut an arab off from their family (by say having immigration quotas – and a stricter set of criteria for immigration) and they won’t have much of a choice but to associate with non-family members. Outbreeding is also a solution to the problem but that’s not what’s happening right now. Muslims in Europe are almost exclusively inbreeding and forming enclaves – virtually cut off from the rest of whatever country they are in.
In other words, while the effects of hbd becoming more widespread are potentially disastrous, the effects of those ideas remaining hidden are also potentially disastrous. I’m a little afraid of the possible effects of Hispanic immigration – worst case scenario the country will take an IQ hit, gangs will crop up making the country a bit more dangerous (holy crap hispanics are 19-fold more likely to form gangs that white Americans) and the economy will be a bit weaker with more inequality and divisions in society: that’s bad but its not that bad (Its better than my home country). The worst case scenario for mass arab immigration into Europe on the other hand are much more doomsdayish and I don’t even want to construct such a scenario.
*occidentalist, one of the few hbd proponents that actually does the research instead of asserting the that the difference between races is immutable estimates 0.75 SD to 0.5 SD between blacks and whites compared with the 1 SD commonly reported.
I’m mostly worried that anybody who goes looking for this knowledge has the potential to make a mess if they find it. (Also, respectfully, I’m worried you may be a small part of the problem too.)
Although, what’s so bad about enclaves? Is it politics in democratic society? Or the whole clash-of-cultures-gone-violent thing?
Do you think that the costs of this knowledge becoming public are greater the costs of not allowing this knowledge to become public? There is no good options if the scientific racists are right, but one option is probably better than the other. Frankly I would be delighted to be shown that they are mistaken since the future would be much brighter.
“Also, respectfully, I’m worried you may be a small part of the problem too”
Don’t know what you mean by this.
“Although, what’s so bad about enclaves?”
Nothing in principle, however the particular enclaves that I am worried out give rise to tribalism due to inbreeding an groupthink. The younger generation of Muslims in France has much more extreme views than the older generation because of this. Enclaves are also a problem when they make the surrounding society worse (whether economically, less safe etc.) I contend that they are doing exactly that in Europe.
I don’t really know, and one gets into the whole postmodernist perception-of-truth-is-truth of course. If we could repair the dealings of race first, then of course it would be good. Alternatively, the knowledge could be esoteric, available but not public (virtue of silence-wise.).
Transhumanism will eventually right all wrongs anyway. But I fear that the the moderate left will facepalm and then keep failing to help, the extreme left will freak out, the libertarians will just let the weak suffer, and the mainstream right (which amazes me by its ability to be worse than the alt-right) will say “I told you so” and then start throwing respect and nobility to the wind. Or throw it more to the wind.
I have heard that enclaves sometimes just become static in views as both the home and new countries liberalize, with rather awful results w/r/t things like gender politics. And I’ve heard worrying things about e.g. honor killings before the eyes of Europe, and the European laws being co-opted to enforce controlling family practices that European and Muslim feminists fought hard to overthrow.
On the other hand, to a reconstructionist perspective, they provide the potential to deal with these vary issues and to solve the whole factional conflict/population replacement problem.
Regarding enclaves, not the most unbiased source I admit but:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html
This might stabilize over a few more generations.
“Transhumanism will eventually right all wrongs anyway.”
Maybe but I wouldn’t bet our future on that.
“But I fear that the the moderate left will facepalm and then keep failing to help, the extreme left will freak out, the libertarians will just let the weak suffer, and the mainstream right (which amazes me by its ability to be worse than the alt-right) will say “I told you so” and then start throwing respect and nobility to the wind. Or throw it more to the wind.”
Maybe that will happen, but perhaps people will also take immigration reform and border control seriously which I think would be a good thing.
When you say throwing respect and nobility to the wind, do you mean acting more racist/hateful to outsiders? That might well happen, but I don’t know if its worse that the scenarios that I constructed (which could happen if we pretend that the races are the same).
“If we could repair the dealings of race first, then of course it would be good. Alternatively, the knowledge could be esoteric, available but not public (virtue of silence-wise.)”
I don’t know how to repair the dealings with race. Its an unsolved problem in every society as far as I can tell. I can’t figure out how making the knowledge esoteric helps. Do you mean only giving the knowledge to people who are involved in policy decisions? How will they justify the policies that they want to pass based on secret knowledge?