“The statement, “I believe that individual differences in intelligence are caused partially by genetics” is not shocking or racy and even progressive outlets such as Vox accept it.”
Vox agrees superficially and only with the generalized statements. If you start to dive into specifics, they’ll clarify where they stand real fast.
And yes, after the reaction to Murray’s The Bell Curve, which is still occurring 31 years later, no one is going to publish research in that vain again.
“… no one is going to publish research in that vain again.”
Much good research is now done outside of the traditional institutions of Murray’s time and publication of the Bell Curve. Additionally, much data has been collected genetically and also wrt student performance across countries. This data is now made public and such independent researchers such as Kierkegaard need not apply for grants to collect and analyze such “forbidden fruit”.
Yes, and continuation of genetic research is absolutely essential for medical advancement. The Left cannot plausibly argue that genetic research be stopped.
Eventually the accumulated research on the importance of human genetics from medical research will cause the legitimacy of their entire world view to come crashing down.
The left doesn't really care about intelligence differences in different populations, because if they are forced to budge, it's actually very easy to breed for intelligence in any population, flattening that difference which allows them to continue the disastrous pursuit of equality.
No, what the left really hate is different innate social dispositions between populations. Because we are social creatures first and foremost. And those innate social dispositions are what causes different things to emerge out of different groups of people... And unlike intelligence, those differences are unreconcilable.
I disagree that “ it's actually very easy to breed for intelligence in any population.” No society has ever intentionally accomplished this. I believe that some societies have done it unintentionally:
Maybe in the future it will be possible to intentionally increase intelligence across the entire population, but the Left will likely strongly oppose it.
I agree that they are more focused on stopping discussion and research on differences between groups and between individuals.
I would restate it as “Vox is willing to accept individual differences are caused by genetics”, but they refuse to incorporate this knowledge into their world view.
I think most educated Center-Leftist can agree with (at least in private):
1) Life outcomes such as income, wealth and education are linked to the intelligence of individuals.
2) The intelligence of an individual is to a large extent determined by genetics.
But they will never jump to the logical conclusion that #1 and #2 makes it impossible for all their favored social programs, taxation, education and regulations to create anything like the level of equality that they desire.
And they certainly will not apply #1 and #2 to differences in outcomes between races.
They cannot do so because it would undermine their entire world view.
That is social taboo in action. Without it, we could have an honest debate and research on the role genetics (and other factors that are not easily changed by government policy) play in inequality among individuals and between groups. And whether equality is even achievable.
The Left knows exactly where their assumptions collide with reality, and that is why they construct social taboos to avoid discussion and inquiry in that area. The Woke are just the latest instance of this.
The Left doesn't care about intelligence differences really, they can move the goal post and intelligence is not an irreconcilable difference between populations. You can do selective breeding to change the general intelligence of any population generation by generation.
It's other psychometric dispositions, especially innate social dispositions that lead to irreconcilable differences between populations.
“The statement, “I believe that individual differences in intelligence are caused partially by genetics” is not shocking or racy and even progressive outlets such as Vox accept it.”
Agreed, but a more accurate statement is that individual differences in intelligence are caused primarily by genetics.
Not sure I agree. Is there corruption? Sure. But abandoning meritocracy or attempts at it because of a multiracial society surely would lead to worse outcomes. All the infrastructure in South Africa is crumbling. The people running those systems into the ground are racially and culturally homogeneous.
What is ironic is that the equalitarians, as you put it, are the ones DEMANDING to know why groups aren’t equal and why the “global south” is poor.
They forced people like me to find answers that make sense, so I looked at culture, recent history of colonization, geography, resources, discrimination, political history, religion. The only thing that has overwhelming explanatory power to predict all the relevant trend lines (GDP per capita, crime, education) is finding the thing that causes people of proximal geographic origins to cluster together in predictable ways, even when they move around the globe through migration.
It’s not magic dirt, so it has to be something else. I used to be content with cultural or anti colonial explanations but the equalitarians kept pushing the issue and made me think about it a lot more deeply. To their absolute loss.
> Then explain all the shithole cities and states that Democrats control.
Cities are shitholes because Democrats are dumb. It's really no more complicated than that. Woke is destroying western civ because the woke ideology is dumb, democrats are running their cities into third world slums because the democratic ideology is dumb.
And racist, they're also racist. The modern left is actively racist against white people and the west, that's why they derive great joy destroying it and everything it stands for.
> When there is turmoil and societal disruption, centralized control is initiated.
The deep state is trying to destroy the west so they have an opportunity to get rid of democracy and install themselves as dictators, is what you're saying?
This plan seems highly unrealistic. If the US ever became a military dictatorship, it would be the president that takes the crown and rallies the soldiers, not the hidden goons in the deep state.
"Cities are shitholes because Democrats are dumb. It's really no more complicated than that. Woke is destroying western civ because the woke ideology is dumb, democrats are running their cities into third world slums because the democratic ideology is dumb."
Yeah, so what? They still want to be to be king of a shithole.
"The deep state is trying to destroy the west so they have an opportunity to get rid of democracy and install themselves as dictators, is what you're saying?"
That is precisely what I am saying. We are already living in a plutocratic oligarchy, and they are now trying to tie the knot.
There's a big difference between people destroying society on purpose and by accident (even if the outcome may be similar). The majority of people promoting "woke" thought and policy seem to be in the latter category, although some might be in the first.
And if someone is really betting that the "deep state" will be in the best position to take over when everything falls apart... well, that is one risky bet.
"And if someone is really betting that the "deep state" will be in the best position to take over when everything falls apart... well, that is one risky bet."
History is replete with examples of tyrants and oppressors using civil disorder to break down societies and gain control.
Racial matters are undoubtedly the biggest part of wokeness. But the main cause of wokeness appears to be more general than that. It is the overcorrection of historical injustices suffered by various groups. And that overcorrection has resulted in those groups now being, at least in effect but sometimes explicitly, privileged to the detriment of those not in them.
Bo, once again, cogent, clear, and absolutely spot on. It’s been long frustrating that so many people who actually know better are unwilling to speak truth and face reality.
None of the points made here are surprising. In fact, they’re painfully unsurprising.
What’s of interest to me, and I assume others, and I hope it’s something that Bo, with his incredible thoughtfulness and precision will tackle, is why this is such a difficult and painful topic here and now. It really is in a way a tragedy. And it’s terrifying to so many people because on some level it means that the American experiment when it comes to large scale, mixing of very, very different lineages or races, is doomed to failure in our relatively open and free society.
No wonder everyone hates confronting these things. The question “well, what do we do?“ Becomes quite central. We’re an incredibly diverse nation, and it’s becoming increasingly clear in fact, is clear that the type of diversity we have its level and the extremity of the diverseness, is destructive. Destructive to community and cohesion.
Do we want to live in a Singapore like world? Is that even feasible at an American scale? Do we want to truly formalize the effective Balkaization of so much of America, states and regions and communities, which achieve cohesion only because of relatively high levels of homogeneity? That’s sort of where we’re at.
I still have some hope. I truly believe that getting rid of the worst most malevolent actors, regardless of their ethnicity or race, will overtime, over generations lead to a more peaceful, and therefore more harmonious society, notwithstanding various differences.
“…on some level it means that the American experiment when it comes to large scale, mixing of very, very different lineages or races, is doomed to failure…”
If the history of America for you begins, say after WWII, then you are absolutely correct. If we go back to the founding/colonization of America, then perhaps not. America was colonized basically by (Northern) Europeans and those were of relatively minor difference in culture and religion and race (compared to today’s populace). Blacks were a great change, to be sure, but were repressed and enslaved for 250 years and thereafter segregated for another 100 years.
In 1965, the year of the great demographic change movement, the USA was still 85% White. Another 7% were Hispanic, from this hemisphere, and intermixed heavily with a Spanish blood lines. We were at our zenith when the great “melting pot” had one overwhelming ingredient—White, mostly Anglo-Saxon and Northern European.
I maintain our forefathers could never have imagined racial diversity as it afflicts us today, nor did they plan for such. So the failure is not theirs so much as ours for failing to guard our birthright, America.
Meh, here's the ugly truth: Nobody genetically belongs in the Americas, it's basically a giant island, and follows that logic for a human ecosystem. Native Americans are not native to the Americas, they genetically belong in North East Siberia. NW europeans genetically belong in regions of NW europe. We all settled where we genetically belonged in Eurasia + Africa + oceania. All of those gene flow events in the ice age, neolithic, bronze age, iron age, classical were not flukes. It had a logic to it, and we have uncovered that finally, it like lifting the curtains to "god's" plans.
I think east coast North America should be for Europeans and West Asians only. There's not a lot of west asians as compared to Europeans, and our birth rates tend to reach parity one way or another. And we would have shipping lanes to Europe and the middle east.
West Coast can be for the east eurasians: East Asians and Indians mostly.
Agreed. And since behaviors, personalities and natures tend to differ among dramatically distant groups, at least at scale, numbers really matter.
Were America still 85 to 90% European and predominantly north and Northwestern European, I think we could easily handle 10 to 15% of dramatically different folk.
Having said this, I still believe, regardless of these percentages, and even more so today, that the only way we’re going to have Reasonable social stability is to keep the relatively small number of very bad actors off the streets and away from their so-called communities. The worst of the worst in any group spoil it for everyone and all.
It's going to end in disaster. I like Neo-fashys idea of Artificial island city-states. The invaders can have our old stomping grounds if we can have our horde of homogenous high tech island city states. We can get our former child prodigies and accomplished geniuses to become gamete donors and make embryos for surrogacy + adoptions. That way even average people can have a place as they would make for good parents to whiz kids. Crank out the 140+ IQ kids and the investment in that human capital will pay off ludicrously.
You mentioned two explanations for inequality: either racism, or genetic racial disparities. Isn't there a third option -- the perpetuation of bad culture? It's not a secret that in black American culture trying hard or doing well in school is seen as uncool. Progressives don't like to admit this either, because they still think it's "victim blaming" rather than pointing at some outside oppressor. But it may have a lot of explanatory power rather than place all the onus on racial genetic disparity.
Yes, that's fair, but it just pushes the analysis back one step, for the next obvious question is: "Why do they perpetuate such a bad culture if they can look around and see much more functional cultures?" One answer is racism. Another is just historical contingency (or perhaps a legacy of slavery). But I find these implausible. Culture is not inert, of course, but it is largely downstream of genetic propensities. That said, obviously attempting to change pernicious cultural norms is a worthwhile endeavor.
Let's play devil's advocate for black Americans. Their culture having been ravaged by hundreds of years of slavery, they find themselves stripped of social capital, positive narratives, and role models by which to elevate themselves. They now sit at a low-level Nash equilibrium where the culture is too stable and self-reinforcing to jump to a higher equilibrium. It would require a long window for gradual change before they could reach a tipping point that would turn the culture into one that encourages success rather than failure. Is there data, or a flaw in this hypothesis, that would make genetic racial disparity a more persuasive theory?
You forget that, prior to 1965 and Lyndon B Johnson, the black communities were vibrant with stable families and growing economic and monetary wealth. You can thank the Democrat party for the current downfall and the black community’s reliance on government. As with any government subsistence program, it will expand to the detriment of the people receiving benefits.
I think you can agree with equality of races, sexes, etc. without thinking that their average talents are identical in nature. Equality philosophically often just means something like equality of soul, or equality before the law.
Why would the inferior demographic accept equality before the law when it results in their being losers in society?
Obviously they won’t. They will organize and throw their weight behind whoever promises them an increase in status, and the coalition they join isn’t going to admit their allies were born losers.
Unless there is a strong majority that cares more about suppressing the minorities agitation than using them as a political cudgel in their own political games the outcome is inevitable.
And so we are basically back to racism. You aren’t going to get people pushing back on woke because they read Charles Murray. You need the median voter to have an emotional disgust with niggers acting like niggers and be willing to vote for anyone that says they won’t put up with that shit.
Yeah, I’m of a cosmopolitan temperament myself, and have been fortunate to not have any negative experiences with blacks, and I think we should be nice and kind to everyone when possible etc… but recent events in the British isles have finally made me realize: Racism works, and sometimes might be necessary. Tens of thousands of English girls were gang raped and sexually tortured because Brits weren’t racist enough. Never should have let Pakistanis in to the country in the first place, certainly not in vast numbers. Practically anyone before 1960 outside of Harvard could have told you that’s an obviously idiotic idea. Once it happened though… If everyone refused to interact with them, refused to rent to them… If they were made to feel unwelcome and even unsafe… Maybe they would have left voluntarily. And if not, segregation would have at least kept British girls safer. Would that be “unfair” to the “good” Pakistanis? (Ie the what 1-10% who maybe didn’t know what was going on?) Maybe. I really don’t give a f***. Priorities.
It's understandable but disheartening that intellectuals like Schermer, McWorther , Coleman Hughes and even Pinker keep dancing around what even barely educated people know, that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between population, that they are to a large extend genetic and that they matter greatly in our modern world.
The irony is that most racists justify white supremacy by pointing out cultural differences, not differences in IQ.
And cultural differences are what are emphasised by the 'woke' as being very great, and almost unchangeable , and indeed it would be immoral to expect the Global Majority to change their culture to 'white' culture.
Their policies are guaranteed to stir up racism and white identitarianism, as we are seeing in the riots in Ballymena, for example, where people are not rioting over any differences in IQ.
You capitalise 'Global Majority ',a term invented brazenly to invalidate and discriminate against whites in their own countries where they're still a majority.
It would be a pretty safe bet that even the Loyalist underclass of Ballymena possess higher average IQs than the Balkan gypsy community whose members committed the alleged sexual assaults/rapes on the Irish children.
"The irony is that most racists justify white supremacy by pointing out cultural differences, not differences in IQ."
That is such a silly statement on so many levels. I will deal here with just two. Firstly, seeming as though racists come in all colours, it is hardly liklely that most of them could justify white supremacy. In fact many of them would be trying to justify white inferiority.
Secondly , you fail to take into account that race and culture are two different things. I have a friend whose face is chinese but whose culture is so clearly upper mnddle class Australian as is that of his family. In my circles thereare a lot of people like that who are no classically white, but who are a neat cultural fit.
It is also notable that underclass culture is not really race-based either. It's just that Blacks tend to be a higher proportion of the underclass in the US.
It is interesting to consider race-IQ in the context of race differences in left-right hemispheric laterality. Iain MacGilchrist, in his “The Master and His Emissary” exhaustively documents the very disparate roles of the two hemispheres, and somewhat tepidly talks about East Asian vs. European differences. He says nothing about Black-White differences, but given that he allocates music, empathy, art, etc. in the right hemisphere, the relevance for this perspective cries out for attention.
IQ is a big red herring. That is not even a racial difference imo, that's a genetic quality difference. You would not say that a 150 IQ Irishman is racially different than a 90 IQ Irishman. General intelligence is also very easy to selectively breed for, so that is a difference that can be flattened, and the lefties can continue to pursue the disaster of equality.
No, what they don't want to talk about is innate social dispositions and other psychometrical dispositions. Those differences between populations are irreconcilable. People are social creatures first and foremost...
In majority white countries most white women provide varying degrees of support for the "woke" agenda- BLM, refugees welcome here, LGBTQ etc. While those that don't tend to be very weak in their opposition to it. Then they do see themselves benefiting from Affirmative action, quotas ,"fighting the patriarchy" and so on. With mass immigration suiting the vast numbers of career driven females as it supports their "childfree" lifestyles. So called TERFs led by JK Rowling only want the T detached from the LGBTQ for them to be fully woke again.
It's understandable but disheartening that intellectuals like Schermer, McWorther , Coleman Hughes and even Pinker keep dancing around what even barely educated people know, that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between population, that they are to a large extend genetic and that they matter greatly in our modern world.
“The statement, “I believe that individual differences in intelligence are caused partially by genetics” is not shocking or racy and even progressive outlets such as Vox accept it.”
Vox agrees superficially and only with the generalized statements. If you start to dive into specifics, they’ll clarify where they stand real fast.
And yes, after the reaction to Murray’s The Bell Curve, which is still occurring 31 years later, no one is going to publish research in that vain again.
“… no one is going to publish research in that vain again.”
Much good research is now done outside of the traditional institutions of Murray’s time and publication of the Bell Curve. Additionally, much data has been collected genetically and also wrt student performance across countries. This data is now made public and such independent researchers such as Kierkegaard need not apply for grants to collect and analyze such “forbidden fruit”.
Yes, and continuation of genetic research is absolutely essential for medical advancement. The Left cannot plausibly argue that genetic research be stopped.
Eventually the accumulated research on the importance of human genetics from medical research will cause the legitimacy of their entire world view to come crashing down.
The left doesn't really care about intelligence differences in different populations, because if they are forced to budge, it's actually very easy to breed for intelligence in any population, flattening that difference which allows them to continue the disastrous pursuit of equality.
No, what the left really hate is different innate social dispositions between populations. Because we are social creatures first and foremost. And those innate social dispositions are what causes different things to emerge out of different groups of people... And unlike intelligence, those differences are unreconcilable.
I disagree that “ it's actually very easy to breed for intelligence in any population.” No society has ever intentionally accomplished this. I believe that some societies have done it unintentionally:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global
Maybe in the future it will be possible to intentionally increase intelligence across the entire population, but the Left will likely strongly oppose it.
I agree that they are more focused on stopping discussion and research on differences between groups and between individuals.
I would restate it as “Vox is willing to accept individual differences are caused by genetics”, but they refuse to incorporate this knowledge into their world view.
I think most educated Center-Leftist can agree with (at least in private):
1) Life outcomes such as income, wealth and education are linked to the intelligence of individuals.
2) The intelligence of an individual is to a large extent determined by genetics.
But they will never jump to the logical conclusion that #1 and #2 makes it impossible for all their favored social programs, taxation, education and regulations to create anything like the level of equality that they desire.
And they certainly will not apply #1 and #2 to differences in outcomes between races.
They cannot do so because it would undermine their entire world view.
Yeah. The in private part is what I’m worried about. We have to say true things in private. Doesn’t really seem like freedom to me.
Agreed.
That is social taboo in action. Without it, we could have an honest debate and research on the role genetics (and other factors that are not easily changed by government policy) play in inequality among individuals and between groups. And whether equality is even achievable.
The Left knows exactly where their assumptions collide with reality, and that is why they construct social taboos to avoid discussion and inquiry in that area. The Woke are just the latest instance of this.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-central-moral-dilemma-of-the
Fortunately, I don’t think it can work much longer without the Left creating a totalitarian society.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-left-has-hit-a-historical-dead
The Left doesn't care about intelligence differences really, they can move the goal post and intelligence is not an irreconcilable difference between populations. You can do selective breeding to change the general intelligence of any population generation by generation.
It's other psychometric dispositions, especially innate social dispositions that lead to irreconcilable differences between populations.
“The statement, “I believe that individual differences in intelligence are caused partially by genetics” is not shocking or racy and even progressive outlets such as Vox accept it.”
Agreed, but a more accurate statement is that individual differences in intelligence are caused primarily by genetics.
Not sure I agree. Is there corruption? Sure. But abandoning meritocracy or attempts at it because of a multiracial society surely would lead to worse outcomes. All the infrastructure in South Africa is crumbling. The people running those systems into the ground are racially and culturally homogeneous.
Equality of opportunity is achievable. Equality of outcome is not.
Meritocracy just gets gamed hard by groups that are inclined to ethnic nepotism. It helps them win the wealth game long-term as well.
Meritocracy only works really in a homogenous society.
What is ironic is that the equalitarians, as you put it, are the ones DEMANDING to know why groups aren’t equal and why the “global south” is poor.
They forced people like me to find answers that make sense, so I looked at culture, recent history of colonization, geography, resources, discrimination, political history, religion. The only thing that has overwhelming explanatory power to predict all the relevant trend lines (GDP per capita, crime, education) is finding the thing that causes people of proximal geographic origins to cluster together in predictable ways, even when they move around the globe through migration.
It’s not magic dirt, so it has to be something else. I used to be content with cultural or anti colonial explanations but the equalitarians kept pushing the issue and made me think about it a lot more deeply. To their absolute loss.
Good for you.
"Woke is about race."
Woke is about destroying Western Civilization. The Deep State wants unburdened power.
How would destroying western civilization help the deep state? Nobody wants to be king of some shithole.
"How would destroying western civilization help the deep state?"
When there is turmoil and societal disruption, centralized control is initiated. As I said 'The Deep State wants unburdened power.'
"Nobody wants to be king of some shithole."
Then explain all the shithole cities and states that Democrats control.
> Then explain all the shithole cities and states that Democrats control.
Cities are shitholes because Democrats are dumb. It's really no more complicated than that. Woke is destroying western civ because the woke ideology is dumb, democrats are running their cities into third world slums because the democratic ideology is dumb.
And racist, they're also racist. The modern left is actively racist against white people and the west, that's why they derive great joy destroying it and everything it stands for.
> When there is turmoil and societal disruption, centralized control is initiated.
The deep state is trying to destroy the west so they have an opportunity to get rid of democracy and install themselves as dictators, is what you're saying?
This plan seems highly unrealistic. If the US ever became a military dictatorship, it would be the president that takes the crown and rallies the soldiers, not the hidden goons in the deep state.
"Cities are shitholes because Democrats are dumb. It's really no more complicated than that. Woke is destroying western civ because the woke ideology is dumb, democrats are running their cities into third world slums because the democratic ideology is dumb."
Yeah, so what? They still want to be to be king of a shithole.
"The deep state is trying to destroy the west so they have an opportunity to get rid of democracy and install themselves as dictators, is what you're saying?"
That is precisely what I am saying. We are already living in a plutocratic oligarchy, and they are now trying to tie the knot.
At the moment, the people trying to transform the US into an oligarchy and undermine democratic institutions are all Republicans.
"At the moment, the people trying to transform the US into an oligarchy and undermine democratic institutions are all Republicans."
It is all a charade. On important issues, there is no difference between parties—two sides of the same coin.
There's a big difference between people destroying society on purpose and by accident (even if the outcome may be similar). The majority of people promoting "woke" thought and policy seem to be in the latter category, although some might be in the first.
And if someone is really betting that the "deep state" will be in the best position to take over when everything falls apart... well, that is one risky bet.
"And if someone is really betting that the "deep state" will be in the best position to take over when everything falls apart... well, that is one risky bet."
History is replete with examples of tyrants and oppressors using civil disorder to break down societies and gain control.
Found the tinfoil hat.
Great work again from Aporia.
But, imo the most important phenomenon to explain woke is ETHNIC DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE.
Rapid change has created a larger market for anti-white narratives.
It's really quite simple.
Racial matters are undoubtedly the biggest part of wokeness. But the main cause of wokeness appears to be more general than that. It is the overcorrection of historical injustices suffered by various groups. And that overcorrection has resulted in those groups now being, at least in effect but sometimes explicitly, privileged to the detriment of those not in them.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/woke-a-libertarian-viewpoint
https://jclester.substack.com/p/race-racialism-and-racism-some-clarity/comments
https://jclester.substack.com/p/privilege-a-libertarian-viewpoint
Bo, once again, cogent, clear, and absolutely spot on. It’s been long frustrating that so many people who actually know better are unwilling to speak truth and face reality.
None of the points made here are surprising. In fact, they’re painfully unsurprising.
What’s of interest to me, and I assume others, and I hope it’s something that Bo, with his incredible thoughtfulness and precision will tackle, is why this is such a difficult and painful topic here and now. It really is in a way a tragedy. And it’s terrifying to so many people because on some level it means that the American experiment when it comes to large scale, mixing of very, very different lineages or races, is doomed to failure in our relatively open and free society.
No wonder everyone hates confronting these things. The question “well, what do we do?“ Becomes quite central. We’re an incredibly diverse nation, and it’s becoming increasingly clear in fact, is clear that the type of diversity we have its level and the extremity of the diverseness, is destructive. Destructive to community and cohesion.
Do we want to live in a Singapore like world? Is that even feasible at an American scale? Do we want to truly formalize the effective Balkaization of so much of America, states and regions and communities, which achieve cohesion only because of relatively high levels of homogeneity? That’s sort of where we’re at.
I still have some hope. I truly believe that getting rid of the worst most malevolent actors, regardless of their ethnicity or race, will overtime, over generations lead to a more peaceful, and therefore more harmonious society, notwithstanding various differences.
“…on some level it means that the American experiment when it comes to large scale, mixing of very, very different lineages or races, is doomed to failure…”
If the history of America for you begins, say after WWII, then you are absolutely correct. If we go back to the founding/colonization of America, then perhaps not. America was colonized basically by (Northern) Europeans and those were of relatively minor difference in culture and religion and race (compared to today’s populace). Blacks were a great change, to be sure, but were repressed and enslaved for 250 years and thereafter segregated for another 100 years.
In 1965, the year of the great demographic change movement, the USA was still 85% White. Another 7% were Hispanic, from this hemisphere, and intermixed heavily with a Spanish blood lines. We were at our zenith when the great “melting pot” had one overwhelming ingredient—White, mostly Anglo-Saxon and Northern European.
I maintain our forefathers could never have imagined racial diversity as it afflicts us today, nor did they plan for such. So the failure is not theirs so much as ours for failing to guard our birthright, America.
Meh, here's the ugly truth: Nobody genetically belongs in the Americas, it's basically a giant island, and follows that logic for a human ecosystem. Native Americans are not native to the Americas, they genetically belong in North East Siberia. NW europeans genetically belong in regions of NW europe. We all settled where we genetically belonged in Eurasia + Africa + oceania. All of those gene flow events in the ice age, neolithic, bronze age, iron age, classical were not flukes. It had a logic to it, and we have uncovered that finally, it like lifting the curtains to "god's" plans.
I think east coast North America should be for Europeans and West Asians only. There's not a lot of west asians as compared to Europeans, and our birth rates tend to reach parity one way or another. And we would have shipping lanes to Europe and the middle east.
West Coast can be for the east eurasians: East Asians and Indians mostly.
Agreed. And since behaviors, personalities and natures tend to differ among dramatically distant groups, at least at scale, numbers really matter.
Were America still 85 to 90% European and predominantly north and Northwestern European, I think we could easily handle 10 to 15% of dramatically different folk.
Having said this, I still believe, regardless of these percentages, and even more so today, that the only way we’re going to have Reasonable social stability is to keep the relatively small number of very bad actors off the streets and away from their so-called communities. The worst of the worst in any group spoil it for everyone and all.
It's going to end in disaster. I like Neo-fashys idea of Artificial island city-states. The invaders can have our old stomping grounds if we can have our horde of homogenous high tech island city states. We can get our former child prodigies and accomplished geniuses to become gamete donors and make embryos for surrogacy + adoptions. That way even average people can have a place as they would make for good parents to whiz kids. Crank out the 140+ IQ kids and the investment in that human capital will pay off ludicrously.
You mentioned two explanations for inequality: either racism, or genetic racial disparities. Isn't there a third option -- the perpetuation of bad culture? It's not a secret that in black American culture trying hard or doing well in school is seen as uncool. Progressives don't like to admit this either, because they still think it's "victim blaming" rather than pointing at some outside oppressor. But it may have a lot of explanatory power rather than place all the onus on racial genetic disparity.
Yes, that's fair, but it just pushes the analysis back one step, for the next obvious question is: "Why do they perpetuate such a bad culture if they can look around and see much more functional cultures?" One answer is racism. Another is just historical contingency (or perhaps a legacy of slavery). But I find these implausible. Culture is not inert, of course, but it is largely downstream of genetic propensities. That said, obviously attempting to change pernicious cultural norms is a worthwhile endeavor.
Bo
Let's play devil's advocate for black Americans. Their culture having been ravaged by hundreds of years of slavery, they find themselves stripped of social capital, positive narratives, and role models by which to elevate themselves. They now sit at a low-level Nash equilibrium where the culture is too stable and self-reinforcing to jump to a higher equilibrium. It would require a long window for gradual change before they could reach a tipping point that would turn the culture into one that encourages success rather than failure. Is there data, or a flaw in this hypothesis, that would make genetic racial disparity a more persuasive theory?
You forget that, prior to 1965 and Lyndon B Johnson, the black communities were vibrant with stable families and growing economic and monetary wealth. You can thank the Democrat party for the current downfall and the black community’s reliance on government. As with any government subsistence program, it will expand to the detriment of the people receiving benefits.
I think you can agree with equality of races, sexes, etc. without thinking that their average talents are identical in nature. Equality philosophically often just means something like equality of soul, or equality before the law.
I most adamantly agree with the principle of equality before the law.
Why would the inferior demographic accept equality before the law when it results in their being losers in society?
Obviously they won’t. They will organize and throw their weight behind whoever promises them an increase in status, and the coalition they join isn’t going to admit their allies were born losers.
Unless there is a strong majority that cares more about suppressing the minorities agitation than using them as a political cudgel in their own political games the outcome is inevitable.
And so we are basically back to racism. You aren’t going to get people pushing back on woke because they read Charles Murray. You need the median voter to have an emotional disgust with niggers acting like niggers and be willing to vote for anyone that says they won’t put up with that shit.
Yeah, I’m of a cosmopolitan temperament myself, and have been fortunate to not have any negative experiences with blacks, and I think we should be nice and kind to everyone when possible etc… but recent events in the British isles have finally made me realize: Racism works, and sometimes might be necessary. Tens of thousands of English girls were gang raped and sexually tortured because Brits weren’t racist enough. Never should have let Pakistanis in to the country in the first place, certainly not in vast numbers. Practically anyone before 1960 outside of Harvard could have told you that’s an obviously idiotic idea. Once it happened though… If everyone refused to interact with them, refused to rent to them… If they were made to feel unwelcome and even unsafe… Maybe they would have left voluntarily. And if not, segregation would have at least kept British girls safer. Would that be “unfair” to the “good” Pakistanis? (Ie the what 1-10% who maybe didn’t know what was going on?) Maybe. I really don’t give a f***. Priorities.
Isn’t it more broadly about emotionalism weaponized as epistemology?
It's understandable but disheartening that intellectuals like Schermer, McWorther , Coleman Hughes and even Pinker keep dancing around what even barely educated people know, that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between population, that they are to a large extend genetic and that they matter greatly in our modern world.
The irony is that most racists justify white supremacy by pointing out cultural differences, not differences in IQ.
And cultural differences are what are emphasised by the 'woke' as being very great, and almost unchangeable , and indeed it would be immoral to expect the Global Majority to change their culture to 'white' culture.
Their policies are guaranteed to stir up racism and white identitarianism, as we are seeing in the riots in Ballymena, for example, where people are not rioting over any differences in IQ.
You capitalise 'Global Majority ',a term invented brazenly to invalidate and discriminate against whites in their own countries where they're still a majority.
It would be a pretty safe bet that even the Loyalist underclass of Ballymena possess higher average IQs than the Balkan gypsy community whose members committed the alleged sexual assaults/rapes on the Irish children.
"The irony is that most racists justify white supremacy by pointing out cultural differences, not differences in IQ."
That is such a silly statement on so many levels. I will deal here with just two. Firstly, seeming as though racists come in all colours, it is hardly liklely that most of them could justify white supremacy. In fact many of them would be trying to justify white inferiority.
Secondly , you fail to take into account that race and culture are two different things. I have a friend whose face is chinese but whose culture is so clearly upper mnddle class Australian as is that of his family. In my circles thereare a lot of people like that who are no classically white, but who are a neat cultural fit.
It is also notable that underclass culture is not really race-based either. It's just that Blacks tend to be a higher proportion of the underclass in the US.
It is interesting to consider race-IQ in the context of race differences in left-right hemispheric laterality. Iain MacGilchrist, in his “The Master and His Emissary” exhaustively documents the very disparate roles of the two hemispheres, and somewhat tepidly talks about East Asian vs. European differences. He says nothing about Black-White differences, but given that he allocates music, empathy, art, etc. in the right hemisphere, the relevance for this perspective cries out for attention.
IQ is a big red herring. That is not even a racial difference imo, that's a genetic quality difference. You would not say that a 150 IQ Irishman is racially different than a 90 IQ Irishman. General intelligence is also very easy to selectively breed for, so that is a difference that can be flattened, and the lefties can continue to pursue the disaster of equality.
No, what they don't want to talk about is innate social dispositions and other psychometrical dispositions. Those differences between populations are irreconcilable. People are social creatures first and foremost...
In majority white countries most white women provide varying degrees of support for the "woke" agenda- BLM, refugees welcome here, LGBTQ etc. While those that don't tend to be very weak in their opposition to it. Then they do see themselves benefiting from Affirmative action, quotas ,"fighting the patriarchy" and so on. With mass immigration suiting the vast numbers of career driven females as it supports their "childfree" lifestyles. So called TERFs led by JK Rowling only want the T detached from the LGBTQ for them to be fully woke again.
There may be no way to prevent further decay while being governed by a self-interested woke oligarchal regime.
It's understandable but disheartening that intellectuals like Schermer, McWorther , Coleman Hughes and even Pinker keep dancing around what even barely educated people know, that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between population, that they are to a large extend genetic and that they matter greatly in our modern world.
Race is the primary content issue of wokeness and its foremost inciting factor, but female psychology is the cause of its existence.