I find it odd that you can believe that Mohammed took a night flight on a white winged-horse to Jerusalem, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that ghosts are real and you will still be considered normal. Yet if you claim to believe that human populations that have been separated for over 40,000 years now show intellectual and behavioural differences you are considered barking mad and evil.
I am not certain of anything but I think the following points all highly likely:
- Races are not equally good at all things. It’s okay to notice that West Africans can run faster than everyone else and East Africans can run further and you may also suggest that white people are more racist and privileged than other races. However, you must never, repeat never, claim that intelligence differs between races, even though the brain is an evolved organ like the lungs, kidneys and liver. Despite this, IQ tests show that Ashkenazi Jews and north-east Asians (Japanese, Koreans and Chinese) are, on average, the most intelligent people in the world. North-east Asian babies have bigger heads to accommodate their bigger brains and their mums obviously need bigger hips, which is probably why they are rubbish at sports. East Asian women also have less of the male hormone testosterone, which makes it hard for them to build muscle. However, this lack of males hormones makes them more feminine in their looks and behaviour which in turn makes them popular with the men. Black men and women, have more testosterone on average than other races. This is not only good for building muscle but also makes them more aggressive and manly, something quite useful in certain circumstances. Black women also have higher levels of testosterone that women of other races which makes them more manly and thus less attractive to men, at least to non-black men. Aborigines, African Bushmen and Pygmies are the least intelligent of all groups with average IQs around 65, with the rest of sub-Saharan Africa not far behind. Black Americans have a mixture of black and mostly white slave holder white genes, the latter lifting their IQ score to 85, which falls exactly halfway between the average sub-Saharan African IQ of 70 and the average white IQ of 100. Some people doubt that these figures are true but they have been consistent over the 100 years that IQ tests have been given. Others believe IQ tests favour the whites who created them. This an odd claim since north-east Asians beat whites on these tests. Others claim the scores mean nothing and that there are many kinds of intelligence. On this view IQ tests just measure one particular kind of intelligence. Spear-throwing ‘intelligence’ and running intelligence aren’t measured. This may be true, but you don’t need intelligence to throw spears or run well. We usually call this ‘ability’, not intelligence. The kind of intelligence IQ scores measure is precisely this kind of intelligence that gets people into the Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge and the same kind of intelligence that allows them to excel in a modern working environment rather than in the bush. If you wish to say that someone who runs fast has ‘running intelligence’ that’s up to you, but it isn’t what is usually meant by the word intelligence. When commenting on Jewish and Asian excellence in schools, please usually attribute this solely to pushy mothers and a culture of education, never to clever genes. That a child might excel at school due to both a culture of education and clever genes is a view that is frowned upon by many. These people never ask themselves why Africans rarely have a culture of education. Could this aversion perhaps also be due to the influence of genes, just as boys naturally like trucks and girls like dolls?
- Equality of outcome is neither possible nor desirable. To achieve it would involve redistributing money at the end of each month, taking from those who had worked hard and saved and giving to those who had spent everything. Since there would be no incentive to save and thus no capital accumulated to start a business or to build anything. Many on the Left seem to believe that if you have studied, worked hard and saved some money you should be forced to give your savings to people who haven’t done any of these things. They call this ‘social justice’. They think that every successful person became successful only at the expense of the unsuccessful or because they are privileged. For them life is a zero-sum game, like chess: one person winning means the other loses. But in reality many situations are non-zero sum. Almost everyone in society benefits from the success of a Bill Gates or a John D. Rockefeller and I would rather be a poor person in an unequal capitalist society than an average earner in a socialist society. Capitalist societies create wealth and inequality while socialist states produce poverty and equality (with a hypocritical party elite living lives of luxury). Social justice warriors want both the wealth and the equality. In this they are like children who have never learned that there are trade offs in life and you can’t have your cake and eat it. They spend their days on demos, allegedly fighting inequality and ‘fascism’ but they are only able to do this because other people are at work and giving up part of their wages to the SJWs. The truth is that forcing workers to hand over their money to those who don’t try to find work is immoral and has the predictable effect of increasing the number of people who choose not to work. This hands a competitive economic advantage to countries that don’t hobble their productive class so. Here is Kurt Vonnegut’s short story Harrison Bergeron, a parable on the state’s desire to achieve equality.
- Equality of opportunity is also impossible to achieve. This is because some people are simply more intelligent or harder-working than others. To even things out in school would mean handicapping the clever, industrious ones by blocking their ears for half the lesson. Some people are born to parents who believe that education is important while other parents couldn’t care less. So should we introduce a rota system whereby children take it in turns to live first with good, caring parents and then with bad? I see no other way of achieving equality in this matter. And funding does not help. For ten years Kansas lavishly funded schools attended by poor black and Hispanic students in an attempt to close the achievement gap and it made no difference at all to their grades. Einstein managed to get an education with just chalk, a blackboard and books. A shiny new building with new computers for each student would make apparently makes no difference if you just aren’t interested in studying. A big education budget can’t make up for either a lack of interest in the student, or a lack of intelligence, or for parents who just don’t value education.
- Islam is inherently more dangerous than Christianity and most other religions. Just read the Koran and listen to Imams and you’ll agree. Or just read a newspaper or look out of your window. Of course the majority of Muslims are peaceful, or so we are told. But so were the majority of Germans under Nazism. But, you might say, Nazism was a supremacist ideology that wanted to kill the Jews and homosexuals. I agree. And your point is?
- Many people in the West who are on welfare have only themselves to blame and are neither ‘vulnerable’ nor ‘victims’. It is actually the comfort of an overly-generous welfare system that makes failing so attractive to some people. Why bother to make yourself employable by studying or learning a skill if the government is offering to take money away from working people and give it to you? Expecting other people to support you and your children is immoral but social justice warriors don’t think so.
- Mono-cultural and mono-racial societies generally function better than multi-cultural and multi-racial societies. This is because we tend to trust people like ourselves and societies need trust to work smoothly. While adding an intelligent minority like the Jews and north-east Asians to your society will almost certainly bring economic benefits it could breed resentment among the native population. No one wants the best jobs to go to outsiders. Conversely, if you bring in lots of Muslims and blacks they will not only drain your society with welfare claims but the former will demand such sweeping changes that you will hardly recognise your country once they are done with it. This also breeds resentment among the natives. Even though blacks have given us reggae and goats curry, they also raise the crime level of almost every society they live in. For some reggae-lovers this is a reasonable swap. For others not so much. I personally don’t understand why an already over-crowded country like England would want to flirt with inter-ethnic strife by embarking on a program of mass immigration from the Third World. Are we doing it for ourselves or for them? If it’s for us, what do we get out of it and why is it so unpopular?
- Aid to Africa breeds dependence and is likely to go on forever since corruption, incompetence, lack of education and a low average intelligence are hallmarks of their societies. Therefore allowing large numbers of black immigrants into your country is a bad idea. The population of Africa is booming and spilling out into Europe. There is a limit to the number of immigrants Europe can take without overburdening its social structures and its traditional ways of life but there seems to be no limit to the number of children African women can give birth to. In the past poverty kept black numbers down since it proved impossible to feed all the mouths they produced. Yet now western aid, western medicine and western know-how have enabled more African children to survive. It is predicted that the 1 billion Africans who now populate Africa will become 4 billion by the end of the 21st century. Many of these Africans will not want to stay in Africa. That exodus has already started, financed largely by the aid we give.
- Detroit is bankrupt because it is inhabited and run by blacks. The darker America becomes, through mass immigration of low IQ Mexicans and the allocating of prestige jobs to not-very-competent blacks and Hispanics, the poorer America will become. Affirmative action programs that give top university places to blacks and Mexicans who aren’t clever enough to keep up with the work and then drop out wastes resources. This discrimination discriminates against north-east Asians and whites, both groups being on average better equipped intellectually to take full advantage of university places. The same goes for government jobs.
- Social welfare programs like those beloved of Obama and progressive liberals can only work by borrowing ever more ludicrous amounts of money and burdening future generations with the bill. Quite how they will pay this back is a mystery to all concerned. Only if a genuinely conservative party came to power and introduced swingeing changes to the system could a start be made on reducing the debt. Yet liberals would never allow this as allegedly vulnerable people (i.e. perfecty healthy 20-year-old men who sit on the street begging and collect welfare cheques) would suffer. Leftists would rather see the country collapse under a burden of foreign debt than allow the government to make changes they dislke. Here is Thomas Sowell on the kind of thinking I have in mind.
- Societies were better when pre-marital sex was the exception, not the norm. The Left would laugh at this and find it hopelessly old-fashioned. The idea that something could be both old-fashioned and good is unthinkable to them. Women now jump into bed with a string of handsome men, perhaps hoping that one of them will marry them. Even ugly women get lots of sex because men aren’t that choosy, especially when drunk. Unlike in the past when people used to pair off so as to have sex and raise a family, now handsome men have no need to get married since they can have sex with lots of different women without needing to commit themselves to any. Ugly men get to sleep with no one, and marry no one, though sometimes they agree to marry some fat, coarse, vulgar woman who swears and drinks like a bloke and has slept with dozens of men who quickly discarded them. Marriage thereby slowly becomes an exception rather than the rule and many end in divorce. Children are probably most hit by the instability of modern relationships and it shows in their behaviour. Single parentage becomes the norm, crime escalates since poor single mothers are generally rubbish at bringing up children on their own and the world descends into a death-spiral. Here is a good essay on this issue.
- Western societies have embraced universalism. Now we care not only about our family, our clan and our nation but also about funny looking strangers who live on the other side of the world. We even care about animals that are not our pets! I actually think this is a good thing. Yet the Chinese don’t seem to bother about such niceties. They skin animals alive. Neither am I convinced that Africans would care that much if the West suffered a devastating famine or flood. We westerners pride ourselves on our ever-increasing circle of empathy, which now even includes groups that despise us, like criminals, gypsies and Islamists. I personally have no interest in an unreciprocated universalism, a one way love, as Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers would say. When I hear a story of things going badly for criminals, gypsies and Islamists my natural reaction is to smile and clap with joy.