I struggle a bit to come to terms with what I think about this article. It simply has too many jumps in logic for me to support it.
I agree with 90% of your factual claims. I also agree that the Big Lie by the Left on Equality is poisoning American political culture.
I have no idea what a “white interest” is. There is an American interest, yes, but it does not separate by race. As you yourself claim, ending the Big Lie will help all races.
I also do not understand why “Real peace may come only when different groups are free to go their separate ways,” which you seem to take as the big lesson of average racial differences. Understanding genetic differences does not lead to segregation. Tall people and short people intermingle regularly.
The reality is that a substantial percentage of white Americans have below-average intelligence, and a portion of black Americans have above-average intelligence. So what exactly is the “white interest” and the “black interest?”
The fundamental problem with your argument is that you do not push it far enough. The Big Lie is not just about Racial Equality; it is about Equality of Outcome in general.
Equality of Outcome cannot be achieved and serious attempts to do so are horribly destructive of society. The Soviet Union did not need a large black minority to embrace a twisted equalitarian ideology. Nor did China or North Korea or Vietnam or Eastern Europe.
The reality is that the American Big Lie is just another flavor of the Big Lie in other societies. By focusing on race, you actually undermine your own argument.
The reality is that all societies need to overcome the Big Lie of Equality of Outcome and admit the enormous impact that genetic diversity has on outcomes for all individuals (even within whites).
You seem to believe that if we ditch the Big Lie on race equality, then the Big Lie is gone. No, the Left will just shift to a different Big Lie based on another demographic characteristic (gender, ethnicity, religion, etc). That will be no better.
Ironically, it is also far easier to move a typical thinking moderate towards hereditarianism by focusing on inequality between individuals within the same group. It is not hard to convince many people that:
1 Some individuals are more intelligent than others.
2 The difference between those individuals is largely, though not entirely, caused by genes.
3 Those differences lead to substantial differences in life outcomes.
4 It is very hard to change environmental factors in ways that benefit the less intelligent without also helping those with greater intelligence. So those inequalities are extremely difficult to get rid of without causing substantial harm to society in general.
The same argument can be made for other heritable factors that lead to important differences in life outcomes.
5 It is very important to enable those who are most able to contribute to society are put in a place where they can best do so. Only merit-based decision-making in organizations can do this.
6 Those who are less blessed by genetics benefit far more from long-term economic growth caused partly by merit-based decision-making in organizations rather than government programs to redistribute income and wealth.
If the above is widely believed all the arguments of the Left collapse. So what is the point of embracing “race realism?”
"Tall people and short people intermingle regularly."
The differences in human physical heights are insignificant compared to cognitive abilities and other positive traits.
"The reality is that a substantial percentage of white Americans have below-average intelligence, and a portion of black Americans have above-average intelligence. So what exactly is the “white interest” and the “black interest?”
Actually, the IQ of white Americans is 50% below and 50% above average. But your comment tells nothing of the differences between black and white IQ. The curves are not equivalent.
"So what is the point of embracing “race realism?”
So, what is the point of ignoring the realism of racial differences?
Your reply does not get to the heart of my comment, so it is not clear to me that you read it carefully.
I agree that the curves are different, but that does not create a “white interest” and a “black interest.” It is more accurate to say that it creates a “smart people interest” and a “stupid people interest.” Both groups are multi-racial.
I am not ignoring the reality of racial differences. In my comment above, I said that I agreed with 90% of the presented evidence.
My point on height is to illustrate that genetic differences do not logically lead to group segregation. It would have been more logical to argue for a segregation based on intelligence, rather than a segregation based on race.
Once you reject the ideal of Equality of Outcome, then race realism becomes pretty irrelevant.
So then if "you agree with a lot of it," then it would seem wise to mention that in your reply instead of just listing a few points where you disagree.
I do not understand your question. I said:
"it creates a “smart people interest” and a “stupid people interest.” Both groups are multi-racial."
"So then if "you agree with a lot of it," then it would seem wise to mention that in your reply instead of just listing a few points where you disagree."
Yes, I should have stated at the outset that I agreed with most of your comments but disagreed with some.
"I do not understand your question. I said:
"it creates a “smart people interest” and a “stupid people interest.” Both groups are multi-racial."
It’s easy. People want to be around others like temselves. All my friends share my basic beliefs, politics. & lifestyle. As a healthy and smart white man I do not enjoy the company of low IQ fat people. I do not have a single liberal gay friend, thank god.
I do not have a single black, Asian, Indian friend. I do not want their company.
I do not want to see a single mosque anywhere in my society much less hear my president say “happy Ramadan.” Islam has no history here. I’m disgusted by the petty Indian lady giving a speech at the RNC. She can go back to India.
I’m old enough to remember what it was like living in a 90% white country & white high school. The high level of social trust & commonality.
Black people don’t like you. They don’t want to be your friend.
You can never be “Japanese” no matter if you were made a citizen of Japan.
Although Amecians may have common interests most people’s interest are along ethnic lines by nature. You won’t change that no matter how hard you try to be nice. Why bother finding common ground with people who on average actually don’t like you ?
None of what you said follows logically from the evidence presented in this article.
You obviously start with not liking other people different from you. It does not sound like you really care whether there is an average difference in intelligence. Regardless of their average intelligence, you will still not like them.
I already know everything about IQ & crime stats. It’s just one example of racial difference. Not the soul cause. If you don’t know that races have multiple different mental & physical phenotypic traits within groups you can’t do basic medicine.
It simply speaks to a larger fact of human nature that people on the whole are biologically wired to be around others like themselves.
You can’t generally be friends with blacks, & vice versa due to the extreme biological differences of “kinds” that manifests in predicable & measurable racial disparity & social conflict.
I agree that "people on the whole are biologically wired to be around others like themselves."
I have had plenty of friends from different races, ethnicities, religions, and nationalities. I have also met plenty of whites that I cannot stand. I guess that I am just weird.
That's not weird but totally normal. It's this guy who is weird.
I too have had plenty of friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I am open to making friends of any background. I judge people based on their individual traits when I can help it and have enough information, not based on the averages of their group. Yes there are group differences in average IQ, and the proportion of smart people of different groups in different, there is no doubt about it. Still, I have black friends and they are smart. What's wrong with that? I also have white friends, Chinese friends, Indian friends, etc. Racism (actual racism, not HBD) is dumb and irrational. Judge people as individuals when you can. Yes, a majority-black country probably needs a different criminal justice system than the majority-white one. But in your personal life you have enough information to judge people as individuals.
Look you can be friends with whoever you want and to only have white friends. But I think you are missing out.
I went from trying to warn a 20 year white liberal gay friend from SF about Muslim immigration & terrorism & him calling me prejudice 2 weeks before the Pulse night club shooting to conceding 2 years ago I have more in common with a conservative Muslim family who don’t want their daughter to be a whore compared to white liberals raising their kids trans to then that Muslim’s business partner’s schizophrenic son shooting up a local grocery store. I’m just so sick of diversity. If we don’t end all immigration only conflict will inherit our future.
I'm sorry you have had all of these traumatic experiences, and I don't doubt it, but you seem to have a bad habit of letting bad personal experiences determine your whole political ideology.
This is not terribly unlike older Jews who have somewhat anti-white views, because of Holocaust trauma. Relatively moderate anti-white views though, nothing against having white friends or anything. Understandable, especially given the magnitude of the Holocaust (and trust me, the Holocaust was way way worse than trans kids or a grocery store, though it's not as directly relevant to modern politics), but it's bad.
The far-left sucks, I don't like their stance on Islamism and trans extremism either. I don't think WN is the answer. Even if you disagree, you should at least concede that it's certainly not the most viable political program to get rid of such things. White Chechens have a big problem with Islamic extremism, and white Californians with trans ideology.
As if those are ever realistic choices in the real world? You can flip this around? How about a 70 I.Q. White with Down syndrome living in a group home yet gainfully employed in a sheltered workshop versus ‘a 120 I.Q. Black criminal or gang leader?
They are realistic choices in the real world, especially when you live in a country that has highly selective immigration from other countries. I have a few smart black friends, and I'd rather associate with them instead of a bunch of dumb whites (like you). I'm also half European and half East Asian (but am white-passing), and none of my white, Asian, or black friends have any problems associating with me.
> How about a 70 I.Q. White with Down syndrome living in a group home yet gainfully employed in a sheltered workshop versus ‘a 120 I.Q. Black criminal or gang leader?
You're missing the point, because you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. I don't have to associate with either of the hypothetical people that you describe, nor would I want to.
The truth is that you're racist, and you use race realism to justify your racism. You don't care about meritocracy. And you're just going to waste my time if I continue interacting with you, so I won't respond to you any further.
If you have any further questions, they're probably already answered in the Race FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs. In particular, you read the answers to the questions under section 8.
"Even if that tends to be true, wouldn't you rather be friends with a 120 IQ black with no criminal record, instead of a 70 IQ white with a rap sheet?"
Is there any successful society in the history of the world actually based on RACIAL nationalism? Ethnic nationalism is a legitimate principle to organize your society around. A country like Israel or Estonia, while being a liberal democracy, is based on ethnic nationalism. The ethnic majority differs from the biggest minority in terms of its language (Hebrew vs Arabic, Estonian vs Russian), religious background (Jewish vs Muslim), culture, the way they think of themselves, etc. But still, Arab Israelis and Russian Estonians have civil rights. It's absurd to say that Israeli Jews are one race and Israeli Arabs are another, or that Estonian Estonians are one race and Russian Estonians are another. The US classifies all these people as non-Hispanic white.
But RACIAL nationalism? Can you give any model society based on RACIAL nationalism that has actually worked? There's so much heterogeneity within races. It's so broad. It's just a stupid organizing principle. An upper middle class Greek-American doctor whose parents came from Greece and a Jewish-American doctor whose grandparents came from Poland have much more in common with their Indian colleague whose parents came from India than with some Scotts-Irish obese drug addict in West Virginia.
You also need some kind of legal construct to classify people by race. The Israeli and Estonian census classify people. So you are going with the US Census bureau definition of race or what? How inclusive are you of mixed people? Israel is very inclusive, free citizenship to anyone with a Jewish grandparent, spouse, and children. Do you want to keep the US open to white immigration from Europe? I do, but many white nationalists don't.
Racial nationalism is ridiculous and is not a useful organizing principle for societies. Just historically absurd. Go tell Chinese and Japanese in China and Japan that they are both the same race and that they should be pan-Asian nationalists. I mean come on.
The Japanese indeed stressed the Pan-Asian racial aspect during the war with the ideal of The Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Chinese would be wise to revive this ideal today in countering the U.S. in Asia.
And did other people in Asia take them seriously? How did the Chinese see that? And how would the Japanese see that idea? Racial nationalism has not been popular enough to be a good organizing principle. And for good reason.
I want to also add that Liberia was based on ethnic nationalism, the ethnic nationalism of African Americans / Americo-Liberians. It failed because other people of that race - native Black Liberians - overthrew that government in the 80s and set up a dictatorship.
It failed not because of pan-racialism but because the African-Americans quickly set themselves up as a ruling caste and the country was run along those lines with native Africans at the bottom.
Just because someone has “a friend” of another race doesn’t mean we should have mass immigration from those countries.
You’re ok becoming a minority in the country your ancestors founded? No loyalty to heritage? Are you Jewish?
I don’t see any white men on the Mexican roofing crew working on my white neighbor’s house.
The only brown people I see in white liberal enclaves with “BLM” & fag flags in their yards are cheap labor help. Never do I see any real diversity other than a token Asian who was raised here acting white.
Why don’t you move to a minority majority neighborhood and find out how well you fit in.
The empirical reality all around us is blatantly obvious. No one likes diversity.
You're the one talking about how people don't want to be friends with people of other races.
Being loyal to my American heritage means being welcoming to immigrants and recognizing the immense value immigration has brought. I'm catholic, but I'd guess that's already too foreign for you.
I fit in pretty well. Making lots of friends of different shades and facial structures.
If it were so empirically true, miscegenation would never have needed to be illegal. And people of different races would never be friends. I can speak from personal experience that they are - all I have to do is look outside.
“Being loyal to my American heritage” = becoming a monitory to 3rd world mass immigration to the point you are marginalized.
… is 100% liberal brainwashed bullshit.
America was a 90% white 10% black nation up until the 1965 “Hart Cellar” (both Jews) immigration act that flooded the country with 3rd world diversity amidst a cultural revolution to DESTROY AMERICAN HERITAGE”.
Notice you don’t reference the Chinese Exclusion Act, Operation Wetback etc.. that’s real American heritage.
People like you are why our southern border is being invaded. & why they will all be made citizens so “heritage Americans” will be outnumbered and outvoted.
Illegal or legal doesn’t matter the goal is the same. Every Western White country is being invaded with mass migrants for “reasons”. You age your fake justifications just like those other countries. Amazing you fall for the lie.
No wonder miscegenation sometimes happens when you push people together and force DIVERSITY down their throats every day since 1965.
Yeah, collective racial interests are silly and stupid at best and neo-Nazi at worst. Taylor is on the silly and stupid side. Part of the reason he is denounced is his associations with neo-Nazis. It's true that people should be willing to accept unequal outcomes, and should be allowed to discuss group differences. HBD does not justify Jim Crow or slavery, but Taylor saying that doesn't land as well when he's been inviting David Duke to AmRen conferences for years.
But we accept Jewish and Asian overrepresentation vis-a-vis non-Jewish whites in terms of academic success and financial success. Still people will bristle if you say that this is genetic. If you say there are so many Jewish billionaires because Jews have a cultural love of money or a conspiracy people will also bristle. We accept black overrepresentation in athletics. Again, people bristle at the hereditarian explanation.
It's certainly possible to imagine a society where all discussion of racial gaps is treated as hateful and decisive but hereditarianism is as well.
I think if that were true then there would not be woeness. I think people actually think it's environmental.
Collective racial interests in an American context are especially dumb. It's just not meaningful to talk about "white interests" in a country where there are tons of ambiguously white people: Greeks, Jews, Arab Christians, Iranians, Mexicans with varying degrees of Euro ancestry, "African Americans" who are genetically 70% European, etcetera. In the US, race is not the most salient divider or the most natural category, unless wokes want it to be. The real divide in the US is between black people and everyone else (whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc). Hanania's article about black nationalism is on point.
SOME people classified as “African Americans” are. There are plenty of people who identify as “African American” with more European ancestry than African ancestry.
Now, you can say that the one drop rule is very silly, and that Obama should be thought of as “half-white and half- black Kenyan” rather than just “black” and I would agree. But I’m saying that the broader US society seems some people who are genetically mostly European as African Americans. That’s how the terms are commonly used in American English. Not in a way that faithfully reflects genetics.
I read somewhere that people in the US are generally considered black if they have >20% black ancestry.
This is meant as a descriptive comment about the US society.
Yet all these ‘whites’ tend to move away from more ‘diverse’ areas to ‘whiter’ areas. White Americans are a nation in formation. Their reduction to minority status soon will accelerate this process further.
Do you have a source for the direction of migration? By the way I think that the intermarriage you so decry might also select for ethnocentrism among the remaining whites. Perhaps you should celebrate it. :P
Residential housing patterns across the United States, particularly in places people are fleeing to from more ‘diverse and vibrant’ blue state urban areas are my source. Dumb ‘conservatives’ always cowardly and dishonest cite ‘high taxes’ and ‘democrat’ policies for the exodus but mainly it is about mass immigration and changing demographics. Even ‘blue’ liberals move from NYC to whiter Vermont and Maine to get away from the third world hordes though will never admit the real reasons for doing so.
I think that promoting white nationalism in 2024 USA is like promoting Ashkenazi nationalism in 2024 in Israel. In Israel the real divide is between Arabs and Jews. In the US it's between black people and everyone else - Whites, and also Hispanics and Asians who marry Whites at very high rates.
I don't see what's wrong with intermarriage between people of various races. We live in a free country and people can do what they want. Anyway, I wasn't celebrating or mourning it, just describing that it's
The US has already undergone many demographic changes. Yes, mass Hispanic migration might lower our IQ by 2 points, but embryo selection via IVF and then IVG will raise it by 5, 10, 15 points per generation. We might have AGI within our lifetime. So much is changing that hand-wringing about demographics like this is silly. If we had 100 million unselected Africans coming and getting welfare that would be a different story. But I think it's silly to worry about selective black migration and Hispanic migration. Very very silly to worry about Asian migration which is good.
"The US has already undergone many demographic changes."
It certainly has, and most of it is deleterious.
"...but embryo selection via IVF and then IVG will raise it by 5, 10, 15 points per generation."
I very much promote embryo selection along with genetic enhancement. Embryo selection cannot raise IQ by 5, 10, or 15 points per generation.
"We might have AGI within our lifetime."
AGI is not a substitute for intelligent people.
Embracing the principle of quality over quantity is crucial in demographics and all other aspects of life. It encourages us to be more discerning and thoughtful in our decisions.
We actually don’t live in ‘a free country.’ I don’t want to live around people with your multiracialist values or have them in positions of authority or influence in any society I’m part of. I want us in separate societies altogether. Freedom of association aka the freedom to discriminate is the ultimate personal freedom which doesn’t exist today in any modern western society.
Demographics are everything and encompass more than I.Q. It is the character of specific people which forms the identity of a particular society and not an economic system, constitution, or whether it is a monarchy or republic.
I think the general argument is that expecting whites to give up any notion of collective racial interests within the current political landscape partly runs counter to human nature but is also just demanding unilateral disarmament. Whites are effectively defined through negation as being *not* entitled to any special handouts or protection from defamation within the progressive coalition, so they can either (A) stick up for themselves or (B) get beaten with the stick of steadily-escalating equity initiatives that only ever trend in one direction. I'm not going to describe that as silly/stupid.
I've gone back and forth about this topic, but part of what cinched this for me was the realisation that (A) eugenics is inevitable and (B) a colour-blind eugenics program using 'traditional' techniques could virtually destroy low-IQ racial groups within a couple of generations, even if you were otherwise civilised about it. Eugenics is after all just meritocracy in the domain of reproduction, so, um... are we really going to insist on colour-blind meritocratic standards in all walks of life?
I should mention the outcomes here vary a lot depending on assumed parameters- e.g, if you assume high rates of racial intermarriage and relatively low selection pressures then the melting pot will erase racial diversity through assimilation before any specific racial group gets obliterated by selection pressures (diversity and segregation being basically the same thing over long enough timeframes.) Which, is you know, fine and dandy if you don't think racial diversity has any value, but presents problems if the groups in question want to preserve something biologically distinctive about themselves into the future.
Conversely, if you're bullish on uplift through embryo selection or gene-editing then *theoretically* you wouldn't need to worry so much about the fertility rates of a given demographic. But in practice l don't know if a society is likely to muster the will for Gattaca-style designer-baby norms without also... um... stigmatising sub-standard embryo production more generally. Once you've acknowledged that genetics is at the root of a lot of social problems, this is going to spill over to other facets of politics beside what goes on in fertility clinics.
"It's certainly possible to imagine a society where all discussion of racial gaps is treated as hateful and decisive but hereditarianism is as well."
I just don't think it's realistic to expect racial minorities to not notice and/or care about these performance gaps. If Jared is correct that we could just explain the downstream implications of IQ and blacks will nod their heads in revelation and go "oh, that makes sense, fair enough, sorry about the fifty years of political extortion, white flight and anti-european blood libels", I mean... I would certainly love to live in that universe, but I don't know if I'm really that optimistic.
I mean, of course I agree that white people are not intrinsically evil.
I think that anti-white racism is awful and un-American. But I think racial nationalism is not the answer. Is there any country in history successfully built on racial nationalism? Ethnic nationalism sure, based around a common ethnicity, cultural heritage, religious background, language, and so on. White Americans are such a broad and heterogeneous group.
I do not advocate unilateral disarmament. Still IQ realism is the answer, not white nationalism. It’s very stupid to exclude Asians from any coalition you build against black nationalism and wokeness, just because they are not white. Who cares? If people have high IQ and the right values, does it matter to you if they are genetically European?
I... don't think you've addressed the bulk of my arguments, particularly regarding the consequences of color-blind eugenics and of diversity entailing segregation?
I mean, coalition-building is certainly a feature of any political system, but the argument that whites are not allowed to be a cohesive unit within a given coalition is a pretty transparent divide-and-conquer strategy, and if whites *are* allowed to be a political unit then whether they want to separate from other racial/ethnic groups is for whites to decide and no-one else. Whatever happened to the right of peoples to self-determination?
I don't think the US would cease to exist on paper, but a future patchwork of racial/ethnic enclaves at the state or district level seems pretty plausible and probably less bloody than trying to force impossible outcomes forever and ever because MLK said so.
There absolutely is white interest, any distinct group has its own interest, and those interests absolutely include isolation from other groups, especially those whose presence is as damaging as that of blacks.
We’re not just individuals there are also communities that have interests. Your classical liberalism has been a complete failure as you can see on all levels in our present society. Your idea of some purely ‘merit-based capitalism’ has never existed in the United States.
I never claimed that ‘merit-based capitalism’ has existed in the United States. I claimed that those who are opposed to the Left and want to convince Centrists will have a much easier time with that goal rather than race realism.
Yes, communities have interests, but the logic of the article should be that if intelligence is largely caused by genetics and so we need separation, then we should be separating into a "Community of the Smart" and a "Community of the Stupid." Both groups would be multi-racial, though one would have a lighter average skin tone than the other.
Racial differences exist in all levels with I.Q. being one measure of intellectual potential between groups. What we need is not libertarianism but nationalism and greater social solidarity among whites (the core population of the country). This requires very different social and economic conceptions than what presently exists.
I agree that we need nationalism, but by definition, American nationalism embraces all Americans. Otherwise, it is not nationalism
A whites-only race realism is not nationalism.
The core population that established the traditions and institutions of the USA were English settlers. The USA is an English settler nation, just like Australia, NZ and Canada.
Americans of exclusively English descent are much too small a group to become a solid basis for nationalism. With the possible exception of Germans, other white immigrant groups have made relatively few contributions. They basically assimilated into the existing English settler culture.
So, no, whites are not the core population of our country.
I agree that we need "very different social and economic conceptions than what presently exists."
America as it exists is going to fragment and break apart. It is already in the early stages of doing so. Whites are the core population of this country and always have been. America hasn’t been predominantly ‘English’ since The Revolution whereas America was 90% white as recently as 1970. We can’t salvage America as it exists. It’s going to break up along a variety of levels including but not exclusively by any means racial.
We'll see. Predictions of the future are notoriously unreliable.
I seriously doubt that the USA will ever split up into a whites-only nation, and I know that attempts to do so will only accelerate the fragmentation to the detriment of humanity.
Until that happens, American nationalism is the way to go. It worked for 200 years.
«Me cuesta un poco aceptar lo que pienso sobre este artículo. Simplemente tiene demasiados saltos de lógica como para que pueda apoyarlo.»
¿Podrías señalarlos, por favor?
«Tampoco entiendo por qué dices que “la verdadera paz sólo puede llegar cuando los distintos grupos sean libres de seguir caminos separados”.»
Probablemente Jared Taylor se refiera a que, aceptar el realismo racial dejaría de lado la inclusión forzada y permitiría llevar adelante políticas pacíficas segregacionistas.
«No es posible lograr la igualdad de resultados y los intentos serios de lograrla son terriblemente destructivos para la sociedad. (…) Al centrarse en la raza, en realidad se socava el propio argumento.»
¿En verdad lo hace, de qué modo? Pienso que, en todo caso, son dos temas con muchos puntos de contacto que no se contradicen ni se anulan.
«Parece creer que si abandonamos la Gran Mentira sobre la igualdad racial, entonces la Gran Mentira desaparecerá.»
Creo que es lo contrario; cualquier avance en un sentido favorecería un avance en el otro.
Respecto de la pregunta del comentarista “Realista”, creo que él no entendió que cuando mencionaste que “ambos grupos son multirraciales”, te estabas referendo a la "comunidad de inteligentes" y una "comunidad de estúpidos", y no a que los negros y los blancos fueron multirraciales.
Libertarianism would give us freedom of association and private ownership of the streets, roads, etc., which would allow whites only communities. It is statism that has led to what you hate (admittedly PC statism).
No, tariffs, economic nationalism, along with settlement of the frontier made some of that possible. There was no ‘free market’ anything as contemporary Libertarians would define the term.
No, ethnicities are not communities. Ethnicities are ethnicities. Now you are just spouting Leftist terminology. Communities are small groups of people in a very localized geography.
Besides what others have said, I think accepting unequal outcomes means ending DEI diversity stuff, increased though on crime approach and lower level of government spending going on blacks.
I think the previous points refer to fair examples of white interest that don’t harm blacks as community. It would arguably improve the lives of many whites (obvious) and blacks (reduced crime in their neighborhoods and stronger country because of more meritocracy) which can be seen as a result of fair negotiations between two groups.
I'm happy to see that Aporia has given Mr Taylor a platform to make his case for race realism - a case that I find quite compelling. Aside from the pragmatic merits of RR, I'm also a proponent simply because in the public sphere I value Truth as the preeminent virtue. Any society that sacrifices it for political ends is ultimately doomed to destruction.
I am glad to see that Aporia has accommodated Mr. Taylor's article. Jared Taylor is a staunch believer in race realism and has been a trooper in promoting it. The search for knowledge is essential for humanity's ascent.
The truth shall set you free.
"Races are not equal in ability, and we know of no way to make them so."
This is indubitably so.
"I think the evidence is overwhelming — and has been for half a century — that the difference is 50 to 80 percent genetic, but whatever its cause, the difference is stable, and no one has found a way to eliminate it."
I agree with this statement, but I would only interject that the difference is at least 80 percent genetic.
As usual, Jared did an excellent job describing the effects of promoting dissension between the races, especially between whites and blacks. What he didn't delve into was the reason why dissension is promoted. It is one of many acts of societal disruption advanced by the power elite to destroy the fabric of our civilization in an effort to gain greater control.
Race becomes the thing that’s true. Blacks will always be a underclass they are not smart enough to succeed on the whole. They create Africa everywhere they go. That’s what’s true.
I am in agreement with Jared Taylor's analysis. Given the current massive population shifts, the effects on economies and original populations, I can't help but wonder how the current globalists can justify giving established resources to migrants when these same differences in industries, cultural development, education devolved back into previous non-function, once the European influences were removed from these lands, even after 100's of years. Behavior is more hard wired than some wish to accept, and then there is a serious cost to the world.
"Real peace may come only when different groups are free to go their separate ways, but if we are to live together, we will be less unsuccessful if we build a society on a realistic understanding of race rather than on fantasy."
Is Jared Taylor aware of the violence of Partition in India?
The violence of Partition in India is not an appropriate example for what Mr. Taylor is discussing here. The discord there was fuelled by religion and much of the responsibility lay with both British and Muslims elites dealing with the departure of the British from India. I wonder what Jinnah would say if he could come back from the grave and saw what Pakistan has become.
America will continue to be a legal and political entity for a little while longer. But America the united, cohesive nation died some time ago. It is being kept alive legally and politically by reckless money printing. A process rapidly nearing its finite shelf life.
When D.C. runs out of road…when they can’t borrow another cent to keep the swelling black and brown underclass pacified with welfare bribes…then the “idea” that has been Post 1965 America dies legally and politically.
Then it’ll be every demographic for itself. It’s time for White Americans to turn “White Fortressing” into White Self determination.
The fact is that Blacks feel that they must believe in systemic racism as the basis for their failures because the alternative ( inherent, congenital cognitive deficits) is too horrible to contemplate.
I have studied this issue since the appearance of the IQ article in Atlantic Monthly in 1970, through the publication of The Bell Curve in 1994, and beyond.
Even such left wing publications as Mother Jones and The Journal of Black Higher Education freely acknowledge and bemoan the IQ and SAT gap between European- and Asian-Americans and Blacks.
It is no longer a theory or opinion. And, as Jared Taylor argues, the failure to accept it is causing untold pain and strife in our Nation, which could be redirected to remedial strategies which would actually benefit Blacks.
"Unless there is a change of direction, many whites will turn their backs on their country and its institutions."
This is an important point that I think isn't made often enough. I'm a pretty moderate race realist... I don't consider myself a white nationalist or identitarian or anything. My wife is Mexican after all. But our government and institutions... They're a joke, and the difference between current US and the late USSR is only one of degree. I don't really see this as "my" country, just the place I was born and happen to reside. Would I die for this country (/regime)? You've got to be f***ing kidding me.
If blacks are 12 percent of the population, they must be roughly 12 percent of doctors and lawyers, and no more than 12 percent of prisoners.
No more than 12% of prisoners, even if more than 12% of blacks commit crimes? Like that won't drive everyone further into disinterest in America. What would you suggest?
If you don't want to look at America, look elsewhere, maybe in Africa, where the Black natives have attacked and burned down the farms of the Bohr. They were given farms and promptly set them afire, let the fields go fallow, salted the ground, and destroyed food production.
Most people rightly realize that it's wrong to say that Jews should be only 2-3% of doctors and lawyers and Asians should be only 6%. Most people also rightly realize it's wrong to cap blacks at 14% of the NBA or whatever. Not 12% but more like 14%. Likewise people should just accept that the B:W ratio among doctors and lawyers will be very different from that in the general population.
You can definitely have a multiracial or multiethnic society without race communism or ethnic communism. I'm sure that lighter Jamaicans are overrepresented among their elite but no problems there that I've heard of. Ethnic Chinese are vastly overrepresented among the Thai elite. As in Jamaica, tons of people are mixed and no one cares. In Israel, Ashkenazim are overrepresented among the elites. Mizrahim and part-Jewish Russians not as much. Tons of mixed people, and people mock Miri Regev for bringing it up. In Israel, Bedouin Arabs are LESS represented among the elites than other Arabs, but are MORE loyal to the state.
Even in the US people really don't care much that there are more Jewish and Asian doctors and lawyers than Hispanic ones. The problem with the US race relations is black nationalism and black race communism, not a lack of "white nationalism". To be clear I definitely do not mean to demonize all Black Americans, but rather a toxic set of ideas. There are many black people who DON'T subscribe to these toxic ideas, and many white leftists who do.
This was a clear, thoughtful piece whose point applies to the whole ideology of egalitarianism that fuels the misreading of what modern society is all about. Differences of all kinds proliferate and we learn to live with them. It is both pointless and costly to equalize what we cannot and should not be doing. To continue to advocate that we do is the path to ruin. We are well on our way.
Race Realism is racism. Even if the premise that Blacks have lower average IQs or Ashkenazi Jews are smarter is true, you are painting all individuals with a tribal brush and going to miss the outstanding Black candidate by hiring a dumber Jewish one. It's better to treat all people as individuals and not part of a tribe, race or by blood.
I said that even if it's true, that there are genetic differences between different groups, I e. Asians, Jews, Blacks, etc., it's racist to project these differences on individuals. This is racism that's cloaked in science and probably worse than more overt racist policies pushed by progressives. It's dishonest that this is "science".
It's like when a conservative calls themselves "free market" or a "capitalist". This is dishonest and does more to damage free markets than anything. Progressives and socialists are at least honest.
I struggle a bit to come to terms with what I think about this article. It simply has too many jumps in logic for me to support it.
I agree with 90% of your factual claims. I also agree that the Big Lie by the Left on Equality is poisoning American political culture.
I have no idea what a “white interest” is. There is an American interest, yes, but it does not separate by race. As you yourself claim, ending the Big Lie will help all races.
I also do not understand why “Real peace may come only when different groups are free to go their separate ways,” which you seem to take as the big lesson of average racial differences. Understanding genetic differences does not lead to segregation. Tall people and short people intermingle regularly.
The reality is that a substantial percentage of white Americans have below-average intelligence, and a portion of black Americans have above-average intelligence. So what exactly is the “white interest” and the “black interest?”
The fundamental problem with your argument is that you do not push it far enough. The Big Lie is not just about Racial Equality; it is about Equality of Outcome in general.
Equality of Outcome cannot be achieved and serious attempts to do so are horribly destructive of society. The Soviet Union did not need a large black minority to embrace a twisted equalitarian ideology. Nor did China or North Korea or Vietnam or Eastern Europe.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-achieving-equality-is-an-impossible
The reality is that the American Big Lie is just another flavor of the Big Lie in other societies. By focusing on race, you actually undermine your own argument.
The reality is that all societies need to overcome the Big Lie of Equality of Outcome and admit the enormous impact that genetic diversity has on outcomes for all individuals (even within whites).
You seem to believe that if we ditch the Big Lie on race equality, then the Big Lie is gone. No, the Left will just shift to a different Big Lie based on another demographic characteristic (gender, ethnicity, religion, etc). That will be no better.
Ironically, it is also far easier to move a typical thinking moderate towards hereditarianism by focusing on inequality between individuals within the same group. It is not hard to convince many people that:
1 Some individuals are more intelligent than others.
2 The difference between those individuals is largely, though not entirely, caused by genes.
3 Those differences lead to substantial differences in life outcomes.
4 It is very hard to change environmental factors in ways that benefit the less intelligent without also helping those with greater intelligence. So those inequalities are extremely difficult to get rid of without causing substantial harm to society in general.
The same argument can be made for other heritable factors that lead to important differences in life outcomes.
5 It is very important to enable those who are most able to contribute to society are put in a place where they can best do so. Only merit-based decision-making in organizations can do this.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-merit-of-merit-part-1
6 Those who are less blessed by genetics benefit far more from long-term economic growth caused partly by merit-based decision-making in organizations rather than government programs to redistribute income and wealth.
If the above is widely believed all the arguments of the Left collapse. So what is the point of embracing “race realism?”
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-and-upward-mobility
"Tall people and short people intermingle regularly."
The differences in human physical heights are insignificant compared to cognitive abilities and other positive traits.
"The reality is that a substantial percentage of white Americans have below-average intelligence, and a portion of black Americans have above-average intelligence. So what exactly is the “white interest” and the “black interest?”
Actually, the IQ of white Americans is 50% below and 50% above average. But your comment tells nothing of the differences between black and white IQ. The curves are not equivalent.
"So what is the point of embracing “race realism?”
So, what is the point of ignoring the realism of racial differences?
Your reply does not get to the heart of my comment, so it is not clear to me that you read it carefully.
I agree that the curves are different, but that does not create a “white interest” and a “black interest.” It is more accurate to say that it creates a “smart people interest” and a “stupid people interest.” Both groups are multi-racial.
I am not ignoring the reality of racial differences. In my comment above, I said that I agreed with 90% of the presented evidence.
My point on height is to illustrate that genetic differences do not logically lead to group segregation. It would have been more logical to argue for a segregation based on intelligence, rather than a segregation based on race.
Once you reject the ideal of Equality of Outcome, then race realism becomes pretty irrelevant.
"Your reply does not get to the heart of my comment, so it is not clear to me that you read it carefully."
I read it carefully, and I agree with a lot of it.
"I agree that the curves are different, but that does not create a “white interest” and a “black interest.”
There are most definitely differences between races and ethnicities and not just cognitive abilities.
"Both groups are multi-racial"
What racial groups make the white race?
So then if "you agree with a lot of it," then it would seem wise to mention that in your reply instead of just listing a few points where you disagree.
I do not understand your question. I said:
"it creates a “smart people interest” and a “stupid people interest.” Both groups are multi-racial."
"So then if "you agree with a lot of it," then it would seem wise to mention that in your reply instead of just listing a few points where you disagree."
Yes, I should have stated at the outset that I agreed with most of your comments but disagreed with some.
"I do not understand your question. I said:
"it creates a “smart people interest” and a “stupid people interest.” Both groups are multi-racial."
I miss understood your comment.
Fair enough. That moves the conversation along.
To be clear: I do not understand your question: "What racial groups make the white race?"
It seemed to be in response to my point about “smart people interest” and a “stupid people interest.”
Otherwise, I am confused by the question.
It’s easy. People want to be around others like temselves. All my friends share my basic beliefs, politics. & lifestyle. As a healthy and smart white man I do not enjoy the company of low IQ fat people. I do not have a single liberal gay friend, thank god.
I do not have a single black, Asian, Indian friend. I do not want their company.
I do not want to see a single mosque anywhere in my society much less hear my president say “happy Ramadan.” Islam has no history here. I’m disgusted by the petty Indian lady giving a speech at the RNC. She can go back to India.
I’m old enough to remember what it was like living in a 90% white country & white high school. The high level of social trust & commonality.
Black people don’t like you. They don’t want to be your friend.
You can never be “Japanese” no matter if you were made a citizen of Japan.
Although Amecians may have common interests most people’s interest are along ethnic lines by nature. You won’t change that no matter how hard you try to be nice. Why bother finding common ground with people who on average actually don’t like you ?
None of what you said follows logically from the evidence presented in this article.
You obviously start with not liking other people different from you. It does not sound like you really care whether there is an average difference in intelligence. Regardless of their average intelligence, you will still not like them.
I already know everything about IQ & crime stats. It’s just one example of racial difference. Not the soul cause. If you don’t know that races have multiple different mental & physical phenotypic traits within groups you can’t do basic medicine.
It simply speaks to a larger fact of human nature that people on the whole are biologically wired to be around others like themselves.
You can’t generally be friends with blacks, & vice versa due to the extreme biological differences of “kinds” that manifests in predicable & measurable racial disparity & social conflict.
I agree that "people on the whole are biologically wired to be around others like themselves."
I have had plenty of friends from different races, ethnicities, religions, and nationalities. I have also met plenty of whites that I cannot stand. I guess that I am just weird.
That's not weird but totally normal. It's this guy who is weird.
I too have had plenty of friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I am open to making friends of any background. I judge people based on their individual traits when I can help it and have enough information, not based on the averages of their group. Yes there are group differences in average IQ, and the proportion of smart people of different groups in different, there is no doubt about it. Still, I have black friends and they are smart. What's wrong with that? I also have white friends, Chinese friends, Indian friends, etc. Racism (actual racism, not HBD) is dumb and irrational. Judge people as individuals when you can. Yes, a majority-black country probably needs a different criminal justice system than the majority-white one. But in your personal life you have enough information to judge people as individuals.
Look you can be friends with whoever you want and to only have white friends. But I think you are missing out.
I went from trying to warn a 20 year white liberal gay friend from SF about Muslim immigration & terrorism & him calling me prejudice 2 weeks before the Pulse night club shooting to conceding 2 years ago I have more in common with a conservative Muslim family who don’t want their daughter to be a whore compared to white liberals raising their kids trans to then that Muslim’s business partner’s schizophrenic son shooting up a local grocery store. I’m just so sick of diversity. If we don’t end all immigration only conflict will inherit our future.
I'm sorry you have had all of these traumatic experiences, and I don't doubt it, but you seem to have a bad habit of letting bad personal experiences determine your whole political ideology.
This is not terribly unlike older Jews who have somewhat anti-white views, because of Holocaust trauma. Relatively moderate anti-white views though, nothing against having white friends or anything. Understandable, especially given the magnitude of the Holocaust (and trust me, the Holocaust was way way worse than trans kids or a grocery store, though it's not as directly relevant to modern politics), but it's bad.
The far-left sucks, I don't like their stance on Islamism and trans extremism either. I don't think WN is the answer. Even if you disagree, you should at least concede that it's certainly not the most viable political program to get rid of such things. White Chechens have a big problem with Islamic extremism, and white Californians with trans ideology.
> "You can’t generally be friends with blacks."
Even if that tends to be true, wouldn't you rather be friends with a 120 IQ black with no criminal record, instead of a 70 IQ white with a rap sheet?
As if those are ever realistic choices in the real world? You can flip this around? How about a 70 I.Q. White with Down syndrome living in a group home yet gainfully employed in a sheltered workshop versus ‘a 120 I.Q. Black criminal or gang leader?
They are realistic choices in the real world, especially when you live in a country that has highly selective immigration from other countries. I have a few smart black friends, and I'd rather associate with them instead of a bunch of dumb whites (like you). I'm also half European and half East Asian (but am white-passing), and none of my white, Asian, or black friends have any problems associating with me.
> How about a 70 I.Q. White with Down syndrome living in a group home yet gainfully employed in a sheltered workshop versus ‘a 120 I.Q. Black criminal or gang leader?
You're missing the point, because you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. I don't have to associate with either of the hypothetical people that you describe, nor would I want to.
The truth is that you're racist, and you use race realism to justify your racism. You don't care about meritocracy. And you're just going to waste my time if I continue interacting with you, so I won't respond to you any further.
If you have any further questions, they're probably already answered in the Race FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs. In particular, you read the answers to the questions under section 8.
"Even if that tends to be true, wouldn't you rather be friends with a 120 IQ black with no criminal record, instead of a 70 IQ white with a rap sheet?"
What is the point of your question?
People should be judged based on merit, not race.
A 120 IQ black with no criminal record obviously has more merit than a 70 IQ white with a rap sheet. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#averages-and-exceptions
> "Why bother finding common ground with people who on average actually don't like you?"
Why would you turn away people that you could easily be friends with, just because they have different genetics?
> "Most people’s interest are along ethnic lines by nature."
You're lying. Societies are based on collective interests, not genetic interests.
If you're saying otherwise, then you're simply claiming your own desires are a historical pattern, even though there is no such pattern. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/race-FAQs#shared-interests
Is there any successful society in the history of the world actually based on RACIAL nationalism? Ethnic nationalism is a legitimate principle to organize your society around. A country like Israel or Estonia, while being a liberal democracy, is based on ethnic nationalism. The ethnic majority differs from the biggest minority in terms of its language (Hebrew vs Arabic, Estonian vs Russian), religious background (Jewish vs Muslim), culture, the way they think of themselves, etc. But still, Arab Israelis and Russian Estonians have civil rights. It's absurd to say that Israeli Jews are one race and Israeli Arabs are another, or that Estonian Estonians are one race and Russian Estonians are another. The US classifies all these people as non-Hispanic white.
But RACIAL nationalism? Can you give any model society based on RACIAL nationalism that has actually worked? There's so much heterogeneity within races. It's so broad. It's just a stupid organizing principle. An upper middle class Greek-American doctor whose parents came from Greece and a Jewish-American doctor whose grandparents came from Poland have much more in common with their Indian colleague whose parents came from India than with some Scotts-Irish obese drug addict in West Virginia.
You also need some kind of legal construct to classify people by race. The Israeli and Estonian census classify people. So you are going with the US Census bureau definition of race or what? How inclusive are you of mixed people? Israel is very inclusive, free citizenship to anyone with a Jewish grandparent, spouse, and children. Do you want to keep the US open to white immigration from Europe? I do, but many white nationalists don't.
Racial nationalism is ridiculous and is not a useful organizing principle for societies. Just historically absurd. Go tell Chinese and Japanese in China and Japan that they are both the same race and that they should be pan-Asian nationalists. I mean come on.
Yeah, eugenostates are better than ethnostates: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2020/01/eugenostate-versus-ethnostate.html
From 1790 to 1990, the United States was never less than 83% white. Is that racial enough for you?
Race wasn’t the ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE.
Estonia has always been almost 100% white. Yet if random west Virginians flooded Estonia they might have trouble.
The Japanese indeed stressed the Pan-Asian racial aspect during the war with the ideal of The Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Chinese would be wise to revive this ideal today in countering the U.S. in Asia.
And did other people in Asia take them seriously? How did the Chinese see that? And how would the Japanese see that idea? Racial nationalism has not been popular enough to be a good organizing principle. And for good reason.
Judging by the tens of millions of Asians who collaborated with Japan during the war at times, did say yes.
I want to also add that Liberia was based on ethnic nationalism, the ethnic nationalism of African Americans / Americo-Liberians. It failed because other people of that race - native Black Liberians - overthrew that government in the 80s and set up a dictatorship.
It failed not because of pan-racialism but because the African-Americans quickly set themselves up as a ruling caste and the country was run along those lines with native Africans at the bottom.
Thank you for your glimmer of sanity in this sea of utter stupidity! 👌🏻
And yet many people have friends or spouses of different races. Maybe this is a preference you have, rather than one everyone else does.
Just because someone has “a friend” of another race doesn’t mean we should have mass immigration from those countries.
You’re ok becoming a minority in the country your ancestors founded? No loyalty to heritage? Are you Jewish?
I don’t see any white men on the Mexican roofing crew working on my white neighbor’s house.
The only brown people I see in white liberal enclaves with “BLM” & fag flags in their yards are cheap labor help. Never do I see any real diversity other than a token Asian who was raised here acting white.
Why don’t you move to a minority majority neighborhood and find out how well you fit in.
The empirical reality all around us is blatantly obvious. No one likes diversity.
You're the one talking about how people don't want to be friends with people of other races.
Being loyal to my American heritage means being welcoming to immigrants and recognizing the immense value immigration has brought. I'm catholic, but I'd guess that's already too foreign for you.
I fit in pretty well. Making lots of friends of different shades and facial structures.
If it were so empirically true, miscegenation would never have needed to be illegal. And people of different races would never be friends. I can speak from personal experience that they are - all I have to do is look outside.
“Being loyal to my American heritage” = becoming a monitory to 3rd world mass immigration to the point you are marginalized.
… is 100% liberal brainwashed bullshit.
America was a 90% white 10% black nation up until the 1965 “Hart Cellar” (both Jews) immigration act that flooded the country with 3rd world diversity amidst a cultural revolution to DESTROY AMERICAN HERITAGE”.
Notice you don’t reference the Chinese Exclusion Act, Operation Wetback etc.. that’s real American heritage.
People like you are why our southern border is being invaded. & why they will all be made citizens so “heritage Americans” will be outnumbered and outvoted.
Illegal or legal doesn’t matter the goal is the same. Every Western White country is being invaded with mass migrants for “reasons”. You age your fake justifications just like those other countries. Amazing you fall for the lie.
No wonder miscegenation sometimes happens when you push people together and force DIVERSITY down their throats every day since 1965.
Yeah, collective racial interests are silly and stupid at best and neo-Nazi at worst. Taylor is on the silly and stupid side. Part of the reason he is denounced is his associations with neo-Nazis. It's true that people should be willing to accept unequal outcomes, and should be allowed to discuss group differences. HBD does not justify Jim Crow or slavery, but Taylor saying that doesn't land as well when he's been inviting David Duke to AmRen conferences for years.
But we accept Jewish and Asian overrepresentation vis-a-vis non-Jewish whites in terms of academic success and financial success. Still people will bristle if you say that this is genetic. If you say there are so many Jewish billionaires because Jews have a cultural love of money or a conspiracy people will also bristle. We accept black overrepresentation in athletics. Again, people bristle at the hereditarian explanation.
It's certainly possible to imagine a society where all discussion of racial gaps is treated as hateful and decisive but hereditarianism is as well.
You’re dumb and idiotic. Everyone knows deep down biological equality is a lie.
I think if that were true then there would not be woeness. I think people actually think it's environmental.
Collective racial interests in an American context are especially dumb. It's just not meaningful to talk about "white interests" in a country where there are tons of ambiguously white people: Greeks, Jews, Arab Christians, Iranians, Mexicans with varying degrees of Euro ancestry, "African Americans" who are genetically 70% European, etcetera. In the US, race is not the most salient divider or the most natural category, unless wokes want it to be. The real divide in the US is between black people and everyone else (whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc). Hanania's article about black nationalism is on point.
"I think people actually think it's environmental."
If true, it is a testament to the vast stupidity.
""African Americans" who are genetically 70% European, etcetera."
That is not true at all. Where did you get that figure?
SOME people classified as “African Americans” are. There are plenty of people who identify as “African American” with more European ancestry than African ancestry.
Wikipedia classifies logic the rapper as African-American: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_(rapper)
Now, you can say that the one drop rule is very silly, and that Obama should be thought of as “half-white and half- black Kenyan” rather than just “black” and I would agree. But I’m saying that the broader US society seems some people who are genetically mostly European as African Americans. That’s how the terms are commonly used in American English. Not in a way that faithfully reflects genetics.
I read somewhere that people in the US are generally considered black if they have >20% black ancestry.
This is meant as a descriptive comment about the US society.
Yet all these ‘whites’ tend to move away from more ‘diverse’ areas to ‘whiter’ areas. White Americans are a nation in formation. Their reduction to minority status soon will accelerate this process further.
Do you have a source for the direction of migration? By the way I think that the intermarriage you so decry might also select for ethnocentrism among the remaining whites. Perhaps you should celebrate it. :P
Residential housing patterns across the United States, particularly in places people are fleeing to from more ‘diverse and vibrant’ blue state urban areas are my source. Dumb ‘conservatives’ always cowardly and dishonest cite ‘high taxes’ and ‘democrat’ policies for the exodus but mainly it is about mass immigration and changing demographics. Even ‘blue’ liberals move from NYC to whiter Vermont and Maine to get away from the third world hordes though will never admit the real reasons for doing so.
Collective national interests or community interests must be ‘dumb’ too by such abstruse thinking.
I think that promoting white nationalism in 2024 USA is like promoting Ashkenazi nationalism in 2024 in Israel. In Israel the real divide is between Arabs and Jews. In the US it's between black people and everyone else - Whites, and also Hispanics and Asians who marry Whites at very high rates.
Not very high rates but too high, unfortunately. Why would anyone celebrate that though as something positive?
You assume The U.S. as it presently exists and has for the last two centuries will continue as it has. It isn’t and won’t.
As for Israel there are quite a bit of tensions between different sects of Israeli Jews.
I don't see what's wrong with intermarriage between people of various races. We live in a free country and people can do what they want. Anyway, I wasn't celebrating or mourning it, just describing that it's
The US has already undergone many demographic changes. Yes, mass Hispanic migration might lower our IQ by 2 points, but embryo selection via IVF and then IVG will raise it by 5, 10, 15 points per generation. We might have AGI within our lifetime. So much is changing that hand-wringing about demographics like this is silly. If we had 100 million unselected Africans coming and getting welfare that would be a different story. But I think it's silly to worry about selective black migration and Hispanic migration. Very very silly to worry about Asian migration which is good.
"The US has already undergone many demographic changes."
It certainly has, and most of it is deleterious.
"...but embryo selection via IVF and then IVG will raise it by 5, 10, 15 points per generation."
I very much promote embryo selection along with genetic enhancement. Embryo selection cannot raise IQ by 5, 10, or 15 points per generation.
"We might have AGI within our lifetime."
AGI is not a substitute for intelligent people.
Embracing the principle of quality over quantity is crucial in demographics and all other aspects of life. It encourages us to be more discerning and thoughtful in our decisions.
We actually don’t live in ‘a free country.’ I don’t want to live around people with your multiracialist values or have them in positions of authority or influence in any society I’m part of. I want us in separate societies altogether. Freedom of association aka the freedom to discriminate is the ultimate personal freedom which doesn’t exist today in any modern western society.
Demographics are everything and encompass more than I.Q. It is the character of specific people which forms the identity of a particular society and not an economic system, constitution, or whether it is a monarchy or republic.
I think the general argument is that expecting whites to give up any notion of collective racial interests within the current political landscape partly runs counter to human nature but is also just demanding unilateral disarmament. Whites are effectively defined through negation as being *not* entitled to any special handouts or protection from defamation within the progressive coalition, so they can either (A) stick up for themselves or (B) get beaten with the stick of steadily-escalating equity initiatives that only ever trend in one direction. I'm not going to describe that as silly/stupid.
I've gone back and forth about this topic, but part of what cinched this for me was the realisation that (A) eugenics is inevitable and (B) a colour-blind eugenics program using 'traditional' techniques could virtually destroy low-IQ racial groups within a couple of generations, even if you were otherwise civilised about it. Eugenics is after all just meritocracy in the domain of reproduction, so, um... are we really going to insist on colour-blind meritocratic standards in all walks of life?
I should mention the outcomes here vary a lot depending on assumed parameters- e.g, if you assume high rates of racial intermarriage and relatively low selection pressures then the melting pot will erase racial diversity through assimilation before any specific racial group gets obliterated by selection pressures (diversity and segregation being basically the same thing over long enough timeframes.) Which, is you know, fine and dandy if you don't think racial diversity has any value, but presents problems if the groups in question want to preserve something biologically distinctive about themselves into the future.
Conversely, if you're bullish on uplift through embryo selection or gene-editing then *theoretically* you wouldn't need to worry so much about the fertility rates of a given demographic. But in practice l don't know if a society is likely to muster the will for Gattaca-style designer-baby norms without also... um... stigmatising sub-standard embryo production more generally. Once you've acknowledged that genetics is at the root of a lot of social problems, this is going to spill over to other facets of politics beside what goes on in fertility clinics.
"It's certainly possible to imagine a society where all discussion of racial gaps is treated as hateful and decisive but hereditarianism is as well."
I just don't think it's realistic to expect racial minorities to not notice and/or care about these performance gaps. If Jared is correct that we could just explain the downstream implications of IQ and blacks will nod their heads in revelation and go "oh, that makes sense, fair enough, sorry about the fifty years of political extortion, white flight and anti-european blood libels", I mean... I would certainly love to live in that universe, but I don't know if I'm really that optimistic.
I mean, of course I agree that white people are not intrinsically evil.
I think that anti-white racism is awful and un-American. But I think racial nationalism is not the answer. Is there any country in history successfully built on racial nationalism? Ethnic nationalism sure, based around a common ethnicity, cultural heritage, religious background, language, and so on. White Americans are such a broad and heterogeneous group.
I do not advocate unilateral disarmament. Still IQ realism is the answer, not white nationalism. It’s very stupid to exclude Asians from any coalition you build against black nationalism and wokeness, just because they are not white. Who cares? If people have high IQ and the right values, does it matter to you if they are genetically European?
I... don't think you've addressed the bulk of my arguments, particularly regarding the consequences of color-blind eugenics and of diversity entailing segregation?
I mean, coalition-building is certainly a feature of any political system, but the argument that whites are not allowed to be a cohesive unit within a given coalition is a pretty transparent divide-and-conquer strategy, and if whites *are* allowed to be a political unit then whether they want to separate from other racial/ethnic groups is for whites to decide and no-one else. Whatever happened to the right of peoples to self-determination?
I don't think the US would cease to exist on paper, but a future patchwork of racial/ethnic enclaves at the state or district level seems pretty plausible and probably less bloody than trying to force impossible outcomes forever and ever because MLK said so.
There absolutely is white interest, any distinct group has its own interest, and those interests absolutely include isolation from other groups, especially those whose presence is as damaging as that of blacks.
We’re not just individuals there are also communities that have interests. Your classical liberalism has been a complete failure as you can see on all levels in our present society. Your idea of some purely ‘merit-based capitalism’ has never existed in the United States.
I never claimed to be a Classical Liberal.
I never claimed that ‘merit-based capitalism’ has existed in the United States. I claimed that those who are opposed to the Left and want to convince Centrists will have a much easier time with that goal rather than race realism.
Yes, communities have interests, but the logic of the article should be that if intelligence is largely caused by genetics and so we need separation, then we should be separating into a "Community of the Smart" and a "Community of the Stupid." Both groups would be multi-racial, though one would have a lighter average skin tone than the other.
Racial differences exist in all levels with I.Q. being one measure of intellectual potential between groups. What we need is not libertarianism but nationalism and greater social solidarity among whites (the core population of the country). This requires very different social and economic conceptions than what presently exists.
I am not a libertarian.
I agree that we need nationalism, but by definition, American nationalism embraces all Americans. Otherwise, it is not nationalism
A whites-only race realism is not nationalism.
The core population that established the traditions and institutions of the USA were English settlers. The USA is an English settler nation, just like Australia, NZ and Canada.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-european-settlers-spread-progress
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-european-settlers-in-north-america
Americans of exclusively English descent are much too small a group to become a solid basis for nationalism. With the possible exception of Germans, other white immigrant groups have made relatively few contributions. They basically assimilated into the existing English settler culture.
So, no, whites are not the core population of our country.
I agree that we need "very different social and economic conceptions than what presently exists."
America as it exists is going to fragment and break apart. It is already in the early stages of doing so. Whites are the core population of this country and always have been. America hasn’t been predominantly ‘English’ since The Revolution whereas America was 90% white as recently as 1970. We can’t salvage America as it exists. It’s going to break up along a variety of levels including but not exclusively by any means racial.
We'll see. Predictions of the future are notoriously unreliable.
I seriously doubt that the USA will ever split up into a whites-only nation, and I know that attempts to do so will only accelerate the fragmentation to the detriment of humanity.
Until that happens, American nationalism is the way to go. It worked for 200 years.
«Me cuesta un poco aceptar lo que pienso sobre este artículo. Simplemente tiene demasiados saltos de lógica como para que pueda apoyarlo.»
¿Podrías señalarlos, por favor?
«Tampoco entiendo por qué dices que “la verdadera paz sólo puede llegar cuando los distintos grupos sean libres de seguir caminos separados”.»
Probablemente Jared Taylor se refiera a que, aceptar el realismo racial dejaría de lado la inclusión forzada y permitiría llevar adelante políticas pacíficas segregacionistas.
«No es posible lograr la igualdad de resultados y los intentos serios de lograrla son terriblemente destructivos para la sociedad. (…) Al centrarse en la raza, en realidad se socava el propio argumento.»
¿En verdad lo hace, de qué modo? Pienso que, en todo caso, son dos temas con muchos puntos de contacto que no se contradicen ni se anulan.
«Parece creer que si abandonamos la Gran Mentira sobre la igualdad racial, entonces la Gran Mentira desaparecerá.»
Creo que es lo contrario; cualquier avance en un sentido favorecería un avance en el otro.
Respecto de la pregunta del comentarista “Realista”, creo que él no entendió que cuando mencionaste que “ambos grupos son multirraciales”, te estabas referendo a la "comunidad de inteligentes" y una "comunidad de estúpidos", y no a que los negros y los blancos fueron multirraciales.
Libertarianism would give us freedom of association and private ownership of the streets, roads, etc., which would allow whites only communities. It is statism that has led to what you hate (admittedly PC statism).
Classical liberalism was working rather well until we abandoned it during the early 20th century.
It really wasn’t working well with social and technological changes in the early 20th century.
Classical liberalism and the free market is what made those technological changes possible.
No, tariffs, economic nationalism, along with settlement of the frontier made some of that possible. There was no ‘free market’ anything as contemporary Libertarians would define the term.
> There was no ‘free market’ anything as contemporary Libertarians would define the term.
Yes, there was. Much more than anything we have today.
For starters the administrative state we see today didn't exist.
A race is not a community. A race is a race. A race has far too large a population to be a community.
White or European-Americans of mixed European ethnicities are a people. Race is interconnected with ethnicity.
Fine, but "a people", race, or ethnicity is not a community. Just like a nation is not a community.
Ethnicities are communities and all nations have an ethnic foundation of some kind. America is not a nation but an empire.
No, ethnicities are not communities. Ethnicities are ethnicities. Now you are just spouting Leftist terminology. Communities are small groups of people in a very localized geography.
Do you really feel more in common with a white Leftist than a black American conservative?
All you are doing is embracing the Leftist world view, and changing the group you support.
Besides what others have said, I think accepting unequal outcomes means ending DEI diversity stuff, increased though on crime approach and lower level of government spending going on blacks.
I think the previous points refer to fair examples of white interest that don’t harm blacks as community. It would arguably improve the lives of many whites (obvious) and blacks (reduced crime in their neighborhoods and stronger country because of more meritocracy) which can be seen as a result of fair negotiations between two groups.
Typical lib. Solipsistic to the core.
Calling me a name does nothing to change my mind, or anyone else’s.
And I never claimed to be a liberal.
I'm happy to see that Aporia has given Mr Taylor a platform to make his case for race realism - a case that I find quite compelling. Aside from the pragmatic merits of RR, I'm also a proponent simply because in the public sphere I value Truth as the preeminent virtue. Any society that sacrifices it for political ends is ultimately doomed to destruction.
Well said.
Jared Taylor is more of a race idealist, rather than a race realist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50yEBDbYjQs
Jared Taylor must become mandatory reading in universities. I love the way he explains things so eloquently.
I am glad to see that Aporia has accommodated Mr. Taylor's article. Jared Taylor is a staunch believer in race realism and has been a trooper in promoting it. The search for knowledge is essential for humanity's ascent.
The truth shall set you free.
"Races are not equal in ability, and we know of no way to make them so."
This is indubitably so.
"I think the evidence is overwhelming — and has been for half a century — that the difference is 50 to 80 percent genetic, but whatever its cause, the difference is stable, and no one has found a way to eliminate it."
I agree with this statement, but I would only interject that the difference is at least 80 percent genetic.
As usual, Jared did an excellent job describing the effects of promoting dissension between the races, especially between whites and blacks. What he didn't delve into was the reason why dissension is promoted. It is one of many acts of societal disruption advanced by the power elite to destroy the fabric of our civilization in an effort to gain greater control.
Take the word "race" out of the headline, and it's perfect. The ideological battle of our time is between the two following views:
1. What we want to believe can be said; anything else is "misinformation".
2. What matters is whether something is true, not how we feel about it.
Race becomes the thing that’s true. Blacks will always be a underclass they are not smart enough to succeed on the whole. They create Africa everywhere they go. That’s what’s true.
You're right, but not everybody can agree on what "realism" is exactly.
I prefer to be a bit more specific. What the world needs is Biological Realism, which is a much more comprehensive topic than Race Realism. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/morality-FAQs#biorealism
I am in agreement with Jared Taylor's analysis. Given the current massive population shifts, the effects on economies and original populations, I can't help but wonder how the current globalists can justify giving established resources to migrants when these same differences in industries, cultural development, education devolved back into previous non-function, once the European influences were removed from these lands, even after 100's of years. Behavior is more hard wired than some wish to accept, and then there is a serious cost to the world.
"Real peace may come only when different groups are free to go their separate ways, but if we are to live together, we will be less unsuccessful if we build a society on a realistic understanding of race rather than on fantasy."
Is Jared Taylor aware of the violence of Partition in India?
What would have been your alternative? Keeping India together?
Of course.
The violence of Partition in India is not an appropriate example for what Mr. Taylor is discussing here. The discord there was fuelled by religion and much of the responsibility lay with both British and Muslims elites dealing with the departure of the British from India. I wonder what Jinnah would say if he could come back from the grave and saw what Pakistan has become.
America will continue to be a legal and political entity for a little while longer. But America the united, cohesive nation died some time ago. It is being kept alive legally and politically by reckless money printing. A process rapidly nearing its finite shelf life.
When D.C. runs out of road…when they can’t borrow another cent to keep the swelling black and brown underclass pacified with welfare bribes…then the “idea” that has been Post 1965 America dies legally and politically.
Then it’ll be every demographic for itself. It’s time for White Americans to turn “White Fortressing” into White Self determination.
The fact is that Blacks feel that they must believe in systemic racism as the basis for their failures because the alternative ( inherent, congenital cognitive deficits) is too horrible to contemplate.
I have studied this issue since the appearance of the IQ article in Atlantic Monthly in 1970, through the publication of The Bell Curve in 1994, and beyond.
Even such left wing publications as Mother Jones and The Journal of Black Higher Education freely acknowledge and bemoan the IQ and SAT gap between European- and Asian-Americans and Blacks.
It is no longer a theory or opinion. And, as Jared Taylor argues, the failure to accept it is causing untold pain and strife in our Nation, which could be redirected to remedial strategies which would actually benefit Blacks.
"Unless there is a change of direction, many whites will turn their backs on their country and its institutions."
This is an important point that I think isn't made often enough. I'm a pretty moderate race realist... I don't consider myself a white nationalist or identitarian or anything. My wife is Mexican after all. But our government and institutions... They're a joke, and the difference between current US and the late USSR is only one of degree. I don't really see this as "my" country, just the place I was born and happen to reside. Would I die for this country (/regime)? You've got to be f***ing kidding me.
If blacks are 12 percent of the population, they must be roughly 12 percent of doctors and lawyers, and no more than 12 percent of prisoners.
No more than 12% of prisoners, even if more than 12% of blacks commit crimes? Like that won't drive everyone further into disinterest in America. What would you suggest?
If you don't want to look at America, look elsewhere, maybe in Africa, where the Black natives have attacked and burned down the farms of the Bohr. They were given farms and promptly set them afire, let the fields go fallow, salted the ground, and destroyed food production.
Most people rightly realize that it's wrong to say that Jews should be only 2-3% of doctors and lawyers and Asians should be only 6%. Most people also rightly realize it's wrong to cap blacks at 14% of the NBA or whatever. Not 12% but more like 14%. Likewise people should just accept that the B:W ratio among doctors and lawyers will be very different from that in the general population.
You can definitely have a multiracial or multiethnic society without race communism or ethnic communism. I'm sure that lighter Jamaicans are overrepresented among their elite but no problems there that I've heard of. Ethnic Chinese are vastly overrepresented among the Thai elite. As in Jamaica, tons of people are mixed and no one cares. In Israel, Ashkenazim are overrepresented among the elites. Mizrahim and part-Jewish Russians not as much. Tons of mixed people, and people mock Miri Regev for bringing it up. In Israel, Bedouin Arabs are LESS represented among the elites than other Arabs, but are MORE loyal to the state.
Even in the US people really don't care much that there are more Jewish and Asian doctors and lawyers than Hispanic ones. The problem with the US race relations is black nationalism and black race communism, not a lack of "white nationalism". To be clear I definitely do not mean to demonize all Black Americans, but rather a toxic set of ideas. There are many black people who DON'T subscribe to these toxic ideas, and many white leftists who do.
It was rhetorical statement in the article to frame the ‘equity’ side’s opinion. It was not the author expressing his view
Absolutely correct.
This was a clear, thoughtful piece whose point applies to the whole ideology of egalitarianism that fuels the misreading of what modern society is all about. Differences of all kinds proliferate and we learn to live with them. It is both pointless and costly to equalize what we cannot and should not be doing. To continue to advocate that we do is the path to ruin. We are well on our way.
E Michael Jones told Jared Taylor and white people that race cannot be your religion.
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-great-debate-e-michael-jones-vs.html
Believing the earth is round shouldn't be your religion either, but you should still believe the earth is round.
Well you should believe in HBD but you don’t have to be a white nationalist.
Yes it can it was for Rome & the Greeks. E Michael Jones is a nerdy freak goober.
> Yes it can it was for Rome & the Greeks.
Um, no it wasn't. There were these gods called Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, etc. You may have heard of them.
they're generally better than people like you...and I don't mean your race.
Race Realism is racism. Even if the premise that Blacks have lower average IQs or Ashkenazi Jews are smarter is true, you are painting all individuals with a tribal brush and going to miss the outstanding Black candidate by hiring a dumber Jewish one. It's better to treat all people as individuals and not part of a tribe, race or by blood.
You can treat individual as individuals, but groups should be treated as groups.
You can acknowledge good individuals of all races and nations as such, while still recognizing how they are in general.
I can determine that Shohei Ohtani is a great athlete and still say that on average, Japanese people aren't as athletic as Jamaicans.
> you are painting all individuals with a tribal brush
So would you be willing to oppose all forms of Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action and race realism is racism.
If race realism is false, why are the disproportionately fewer Blacks in many positions?
The only explanation you can provide is racism in hiring.
I said that even if it's true, that there are genetic differences between different groups, I e. Asians, Jews, Blacks, etc., it's racist to project these differences on individuals. This is racism that's cloaked in science and probably worse than more overt racist policies pushed by progressives. It's dishonest that this is "science".
It's like when a conservative calls themselves "free market" or a "capitalist". This is dishonest and does more to damage free markets than anything. Progressives and socialists are at least honest.
You're playing motte-and-bailey games.
I'm pretty clear. Race realism is racism.