The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
Race/IQ Revisited
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

TAC-RaceIQ For a combination of demographic and ideological reasons few topics in American public life are more explosive than those involving race.

Racial factors obviously underlie a wide range of major public policy issues yet are almost always ignored by nearly all participants. However, every now and then a careless statement or uncovered document will suddenly bring these subterranean flows to the surface, producing a volcanic eruption of white-hot controversy. Thus American politicians and policy analysts, knowingly or not, spend most of their careers walking through mine fields and occasionally blowing themselves up.

Consider the newly released Heritage Foundation report sharply criticizing the fiscal impact of the proposed immigration reform legislation currently being considered by Congress. For a couple of days the focus had been on the green eyeshades issue of whether the multi-trillion-dollar claims had improperly failed to include dynamic scoring in their underlying econometric model. But then the debate suddenly took an explosively controversial turn when the media discovered that co-author Jason Richwine possessed a long paper-trail of highly heretical racial views, especially with regards to IQ matters.

Racial differences constitute the intellectual pornography of our American elites, and The New York Times, The Washington Post, and a host of web journalists are now eagerly covering this prurient debate, which seems likely to overshadow any analysis of the original 92-page report itself. Most mainstream conservative pundits have been sharply critical of Richwine, but a few associated with the VDare webzine, such as Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire, have risen to his strong defense.

Now from a personal perspective, I have very mixed feelings about the proposed immigration legislation and haven’t followed the ongoing debate in much detail. But less than 24 hours ago I noticed a huge upsurge in traffic to an article I’d published last year on racial IQ issues, and that caught my attention.

At the time it appeared my 7,500 word cover story had sparked a huge debate on the web, involving many dozens of overwhelmingly hostile responses together with nine follow-up columns of my own, totaling a further 15,000 words. But with the notable exception of a short column in the Boston Globe, the entire mainstream media maintained a studious silence on such a taboo subject, and that greatly irritated me. So perhaps the current outpouring of media commentary on Race/IQ may finally provide timorous journalists with the excuse they require to actually investigate this important subject and perhaps bring some of the major conclusions to a much wider audience.

And by purest coincidence, the same Dr. Richwine had also been one of my principal interlocutors in 2010, when publication of my major article analyzing Hispanic crime rates had similarly provoked a raucous debate on the web, a debate that was similarly almost totally ignored by the mainstream media.

If my findings on these important topics now attract broader attention, I’ll be the first to congratulate our journalistic community, since late is always better than never. And I’ll certainly owe a large debt of gratitude to the unfortunate Dr. Richwine.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: IQ, Race/IQ 
The Race/IQ Series
Hide 48 CommentsLeave a Comment
48 Comments to "Race/IQ Revisited"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. If race and I.Q. are marshaled in support of why one demographic should be favored or another denied, it is obvious that those benefiting or being harmed will tend to hold self-interested positions, rather than disinterested ones.

    The stakes are so high, this is an area where there will always be more heat than light.

    Politically speaking, no aggrieved group can assent to being marginalized because they are said to be statistically inferior in intelligence to those holding power.

  2. Dismalist says:

    Sure, Fran, but relax, those holding power ain’t too bright either! :-)

  3. KateLE says:

    For the umpteenth time, if what you propose is true, what would you do with that information? Deny an education to a specific race because they are statistically not worth it? Really, what is the point of this? I think that’s the reason for the backlash.

  4. “For a combination of demographic and ideological reasons few topics in American public life are more explosive than those involving race.”

    Also, you know, slavery? The Nazis? Eugenics? These mean anything to you?

    Theories of inherent racial inferiority are taboo because, among other reasons, they supported and justified some of the greatest atrocities of at least the last three centuries of human history.

    Sometimes when people step on the minefield of racial difference, 6 million Jews blow up.

    There is a tendency for people pushing modern scientific racism to act as though racism is taboo for the same reason a topless woman is, or the same reason we close the door when we use the bathroom: a sort of arbitrary squeemishness that springs from nowhere in particular. I find this immensely frustrating.

    Also, John Derbyshire is an admitted racist.

  5. Glaivester says: • Website

    For the umpteenth time, if what you propose is true, what would you do with that information?

    (1) This information might affect immigration policy; we would be less likely to bring in people who were more likely to have trouble succeeding.

    (2) This would explain much of the racial achievement gap in test scores; our policies for dealing with this gap currently assume that there is some magic key that will make all races score equally. If the achievement gap is largely due to genetic factors, we can stop wasting time and money trying to make everyone equal and instead use it to find out what different people’s actual potentials are and how to make them reach their personal potential.

    (3) If what Ron Unz proposes is true, then much or all of the blaming of black and Latino underachievement on white racism is false. Would it not be good to use that information to stop people from stirring up racial resentment and hatred on the basis that their poor fortune is whitey’s fault?

    Deny an education to a specific race because they are statistically not worth it?

    No, that would be stupid. People can be judged as individuals. The real issue is that judging people as individuals may not achieve the desired racial balance. “Anti-racists” typically seem to accuse “race realists” of judging a person’s race rather than them as an individual. But in reality, we are the ones who want individuals judged as individuals. The “anti-racists” want all ethnic groups to be equally distributed in all things, which requires judging a person by his race – generally, by giving points to people who belong to races that underperform.

    What would happen would not be “no blacks need apply” at elite colleges. Rather, blacks who have SAT scores that are significantly lower than the cut-off point for whites would no longer get in on the basis that their low scores were due to a biased test.

    Put another way, it’s not about rejecting qualified minorities, it’s about no longer accepting unqualified ones on the basis that their lack of qualifications is simply the man keeping them down.

    Really, what is the point of this? I think that’s the reason for the backlash.

    The point is that maybe you don’t care about race and IQ. But it sure cares about you.

  6. Glaivester says: • Website

    Christopher:

    Theories of inherent racial inferiority are taboo because, among other reasons, they supported and justified some of the greatest atrocities of at least the last three centuries of human history.

    And theories of complete egalitarianism are causing whites to commit demographic suicide. If the white South African population eventually gets driven out or killed, will that create any skepticism over the anti-Apartheid movement, or will you just shrug and say “whitey had it coming?”

    There may be good reasons why race was taboo in the past, but there are good reasons why it must no longer be so – unless, of course, the extermination of whites is something that you find acceptable.

  7. Glaivester says: • Website

    Sometimes when people step on the minefield of racial difference, 6 million Jews blow up.

    And sometimes when you don’t, you turn a modern country into the rape capital of the world.

  8. Hmmm….

    For a supposedly learned writer, Mr. Unz is pretty dumb.

    So it goes…

  9. Derbyshire admitted to being racist? He seemed to used to think that if inferiority is the truth, as he believes, that then it’s not racism. Racism would be if you claimed inferiority but it wasn’t true.

  10. See? Someone touts “scholarship” that suggests lighter-skinned people might do slightly-better on certain tests that purport to measure intellectual ability–and someone else comes along and extrapolates it to “if we whites don’t keep our boot-heels firm on the necks of all them colored folks, then Rhodesia”.

    You’d think that the allegedly-superior race, would be able to stave off annihilation at the hands of the swarthier ones–especially given the imbalance in money and weaponry that happens to exist today. But, no–reality is a D. W. Griffith movie, and it’s only by the grace of God and his knights in white sheets (or whoever) that Caucasians haven’t been utterly exterminated.

    I think that this sort of nonsense, Glaviester, precisely proves Christopher’s point.

  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Selective reading of history you have there, Glaivester. Nice glossing over of the fact that the rape statistics of the USian South was much higher (prior to Emancipation) than that of modern South Africa…if you were a black woman. Is your explanation for the high rape statistics of the USian south the low IQ and depraved morals of Anglo-Saxon whites?

    But it’s not like we have to go back to the days of slavery for examples of white brutality against persons of color. Since you mentioned rape, I wonder what your explanation is for the fact that nearly half of all Native American women will be assaulted in their lifetimes, with 86% of those assaults committed by white men. Must be that low IQ and moral depravity of white men, right?

  12. Matt says:

    I don’t really get why your previous race/IQ article was ignored by the media, considering that you reached a conclusion that there are no significant racial differences in IQ among the groups you studied, a conclusion I would think the media would find entirely agreeable.

  13. Dan says:

    In the name of racial ‘equality’ which cannot exist in Nature, Western cities and suburbs are being destroyed, civilization as we knew it is ending, Communists have murdered 120 million people (and counting). These equalitarian fiends probably will get their ‘equality’, because in death we all perform the same.

  14. T. Sledge says:

    Let’s see, isn’t it true that there is as much variation in intelligence WITHIN a given ethnic group as there is BETWEEN two given ethnic groups?

    So that, every once in a while the Jews, who constitute such a small percentage of humanity, yet produce all those Nobel laureates, also once in a while produce an embarrassment like Jennifer Rubin.

    And blacks, everybody’s candidate for “bringing up the rear”, once in a great while produce a Percy Julian: Phi Beta Kappa and valedictorian at Depauw 1920 —- even though he had to play “catch up” due to the mediocre secondary education he got in Alabama, MS in Chemistry from Harvard, PhD in Chemistry from the University of Vienna 1931 (hardly a time and place for “affirmative action babies”), first to synthesize physostigmine, 130 patents in Chemistry.

    If we are going to encourage bringing “the best” from other countries into the US, then let’s bring in the best INDIVIDUALS; test the IQs of INDIVIDUALS, and base policy on THAT.

    Why should the rare Percy Julian be barred because of the general low achievement among us blacks, while someone who belongs to a higher achieving GROUP is allowed in, even though that individual may be the proverbial dumbass?

    Otherwise you’re mimicking the Nazis, who so proudly hailed the achievements of the Germanic people, while in fact the only first rate intellect among the Nazi elite was probably Albert Speer (Goebbels owed his PhD more to a kind of low cunning than he did to anything else). Nobody gets to “ride the coat tails” of anybody else, and nobody is judged on the basis of anything other this his/her INDIVIDUAL ability as measured by IQ.

  15. Dahlia says:

    Kate says, “Really, what is the point of this? I think that’s the reason for the backlash.”

    Scientists have been very responsible in regards to the feelings of the public on intelligence: their findings can be found by anyone who is interested in the topic and nobody is being forced to learn about it who may find it uncomfortable or uninteresting.
    I support this.

    As to why you’re hearing about it and why there is a backlash has more to do with politics, human emotion, and trust.

    With this bill and issue in the forefront, during make or break time, the interested parties get desperate. The people who found Richwine’s thesis and writings probably don’t realize, and surely don’t care, that they are not controversial in the academic realm. His extrapolations may get him in a tangle with the esteemed author of this post and others, but the parties simply disagree and respectfully debate each other.

    The interests that want this bill passed aren’t concerned with educating you or anybody else on the latest in the studies of intelligence. They certainly won’t enlighten you on the views of other countries, like Canada, with respect to IQ and immigration.
    Their concern is getting this bill passed; it’s not personal.

    Getting as many people mad as hell and afraid as possible, by any means necessary, is an age-old solution.

  16. Dahlia says:

    Ron,
    I for one don’t relish this subject coming back. You took one hell of a beating the last time. I just don’t think there are that many intelligent people out there who are interested in intelligence who support a softer hereditarian position. This is why you got virtually got no back-up in the “debate” last time. That is not to say you were wrong, but the people who would be sympathetic to such a position have not been going into psychometrics because it’s been a drip-drip of findings supporting hereditarianism in a society that has been hard-core about everything being environmental.

    It reminds me of many of the fundamentalist homeschoolers I know: they tend to minimilize biological science in their children’s education because of the painful cognitive dissonance.

  17. Andy says:

    You can’t comment on IQ and race because your IQ somewhat correlates to your earnings potential, and in our equalist society, that would go against everything we’ve been taught I.e. ” if you work hard or have the right upbringing, you can be anything”.

  18. Dahlia says:

    I take back what I said about academics respectfully disagreeing and debating each other. I’ve too soon forgotten about the Unz-Cochran feud… as well as many of the historic feuds behind scientific discoveries.

  19. AndrewH says:

    For the umpteenth time, if what you propose is true, what would you do with that information?

    If nothing else it could be used to counter the haters who believe whites are to blame for the failures of others and thus should be subjected to racial discrimination through affirmative action and the “disparate impact” doctrine.

  20. “South African population eventually gets driven out or killed, will that create any skepticism over the anti-Apartheid movement, or will you just shrug and say “whitey had it coming?””

    This is one of the most bizzarre comments I have ever read. I get abused for x number of years. One day, I retalliate against the abuser, and your conclusion is that the abuser must then have been correct?

    I would say that black Africans are a unique people. Extraordinary by the measure of compassion, tolerance they have besowed on their previous ensalvors, and abusers. if evey black killed whites on sight, sho could blame them? But would such behavior amount to a sign of less intelligence? Since people with high IQ’s murder their fellow man, sometimes thousands at a time. Afterall, Hitler wasn’t a dunce. I am not sure one can lnk intelligence to acts of violence. I was calm about 9/11. The people around me all were beside themselves and they were hell bent on making me beside myself as well. And many of them have high IQ’s. They were Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, UCSD, Academy graduates, instructors all foaming at the mouth to to kill someone.

  21. So I have to exit that viscious look of apartehied and it’s brutality and inhumanity as designed by the intellectual superior that if blacks engaged the same would be an exhibition of lower IQ’s.

    Because by and large the black people of Africa have been amazingly and astoundingly forgiving. I am always fascinated that one does not hear of maurauding black lynch mobs hanging fleeing southerners. I sure sign of low IQ.

    The violence/anger disqualified game is as old as society. but it hase been used most effectively against blacks. Begining with the premise that their skin color relegated them to a lower rung of human development. I hope we have now learned that this this is false. Eventually, we will unravel the anger game animal disqualified scenarios litmus tests 9to include extraordinary measures to provoke the same) given to black males primarily primarily to remove them from the competition.

    The intelligence quotient is a model created by western societies. I read somewhere, I think it was the book, “Why Black People Tend To Holla,” drop Albert Eistein in the Congo and see if he could strategize a means of surving. I have little doubt that the black people living in the vicinity upon spotting the bispeckle genius, would look upon the man as a village idiot.

    I just don’t think color is determinant of IQ. Assuming that there is agreemnt on what IQ means. I certainly question the IQ of anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq black, brown, red or white.

  22. So I have to exit that viscious look of apartehied and it’s brutality and inhumanity as designed by the intellectual superior that if blacks engaged the same would be an exhibition of lower IQ’s. As I write this I realize that which I noted as bizarre is part of the foundational beliefs, the whiteness itself is a sign of intelligence.

    Because by and large the black people of Africa have been amazingly and astoundingly forgiving. I am always fascinated that one does not hear of maurauding black lynch mobs hanging fleeing southerners during the Civil War. A sure sign of low IQ, apparently such behavior is an indicaor of low IQ only if you are black.

    The violence/anger equals low IQ disqualification game is as old as society. but it has been used most effectively against blacks. Begining with the premise that their skin color relegated them to a lower rung of human development. I hope we have now learned that this this is false. Eventually, we will unravel the anger intelligence animal game disqualifying scenarios litmus tests (to include extraordinary measures to provoke the same) applied black males primarily primarily to remove them from the competition.

    The intelligence quotient is a model created by western societies. I read somewhere, I think it was the book, “Why Black People Tend To Holla,” drop Albert Eistein in the Congo and see if he could strategize a means of surving.

    I have little doubt that the black people living in the vicinity upon spotting the bispeckle genius, and examining his choices would look upon the man as a village idiot.

    I just don’t think color is determinant of IQ. Assuming that there is agreemnt on what IQ means. I certainly question the IQ of anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq black, brown, red or white.

  23. Glaivester says: • Website

    Why should the rare Percy Julian be barred because of the general low achievement among us blacks, while someone who belongs to a higher achieving GROUP is allowed in, even though that individual may be the proverbial dumbass?

    Who is saying that we should bar high-achieving people based on their race?

    See? Someone touts “scholarship” that suggests lighter-skinned people might do slightly-better on certain tests that purport to measure intellectual ability

    The issue has never been skin-color, it’s been ancestry. The issue is people of European ancestry, people of South/Central Amerindian ancestry, and people of African ancestry. skin color is a useful identifier, but we are talking about populations that developed under different conditions and largely reproductively isolated from one another for thousands of years.

    You’d think that the allegedly-superior race, would be able to stave off annihilation at the hands of the swarthier ones

    Whites may have advantages over blacks in certain areas (and they advantages over us in others) but whites are being conditioned to hate their race. That is the danger; it’s from within, not from other races.

    and extrapolates it to “if we whites don’t keep our boot-heels firm on the necks of all them colored folks, then Rhodesia”.

    We don’t need to keep our boot-heels on them. But we don’t need to support policies designed to make us a minority in a country we created. We don’t need to shy away from unpleasant facts about differences. And we need to be unafraid to make policies that take into account those differences. That does not mean barring people from getting jobs because of their race. It does mean accepting that we may never have as many black physicists as Jewish ones, and not trying to move heaven and earth to get more blacks taking physics. It does mean adopting immigration policies that keep people (individuals) out unless they can demonstrate that they are a net benefit to the U.S.

    And when dealing with policies that involve large numbers of people, we need to take statistics into account; an individual may be smart, but if we are talking millions of people, it is unlikely that the majority of them will be statistical exceptions.

  24. Glaivester says: • Website

    Another point to make: Richwine was not saying, as I understand it, that Latinos in general are less intelligent than native-born whites. He was saying that the Latinos who immigrate to the U.S. are in general less intelligent than native-born whites. That is because most of the intelligent ones have a lot of opportunities in Mexico. We are disproportionately getting the less able.

  25. TomB says:

    The commentary here well illustrates one of the main problems I have with the discussion of I.Q., to the effect of seeing it being used so casually as either a synonym for or at least causal factor in violence, criminality, general ungovernability, and on and on and on.

    Seems to me the good point that’s long been made about I.Q. is its utter artificiality and yet the reification it so deceptively inspires and that shouldn’t be forgotten.

  26. Thank you Andrew H! The purpose of the race/IQ debate is to come up with a rationale to end affirmative action. It is an analog to the climate change debate: sure, there may be historic and cultural factors (anthropogenic factors) that have influenced the relative performance of various population groups. Among those factors may be various examples of historic injustice. But any effect that those contingent factors may have had — and the injustice is all in the past anyhow — is overwhelmed by genetic factors. These are are beyond anyone’s power to ameliorate. So don’t come to me and claim that my inherited cultural and fiscal capital ought to be redistributed. I deserve everything I have, and those that don’t have it sure don’t deserve any of mine.

  27. Chuck says:

    T. Sledge says:

    “If we are going to encourage bringing “the best” from other countries into the US, then let’s bring in the best INDIVIDUALS; test the IQs of INDIVIDUALS, and base policy on THAT.”

    So you agree with what Richwine said in this doctoral thesis? What, then, is your point?

  28. Viking says:

    Ron, this is indeed a touchy subject, and I admire your courage for bringing it up. You’ve spoken to these issues before, I believe, but it should be pointed out again that the Northern European Gentile population, while doing better on IQ and aptitude tests than African and Hispanic Americans, don’t do as well as those of European Jewish, East Asian, and perhaps South Asian descent.

    Glaivester, your first post was superb. Why did you squander that thoughtfulness with silly and loose talk of whites being destroyed by Africans getting their human rights?

    T. Sledge, it is NOT true that the differences within a group are as great as those among groups – they are actually vastly more in the former case! A given ethnicity can produce both child prodigies and the severely retarded. No difference between this ethnicity and that comes close to that range. Btw, I really don’t think Jennifer Rubin is quite the knucklehead that you suggest, tho she does seem wrongheaded on a number of issues. But does anyone agree with anyone else entirely?

    Elite Comminc, your apparent justification for black South Africans committing genocide again their white fellow citizens is quite frightening, to say the least.

    I’m wondering here, in conclusion, if a good share of the problem is that we make too much of credentials where they aren’t necessary to do a job. For instance, there were superb entrepreneurs of the 19th century who had only the most rudimentary education. Perhaps we can come closer to the “you can be anything” doctrine, which Andy cites, than we might now think. But that would require a re-thinking of the exclusionary policies of our educational system.

    Viking

  29. “Elite Comminc, your apparent justification for black South Africans committing genocide again their white fellow citizens is quite frightening, to say the least . . .”

    If the matter as advanced, that aprthied is a justifiable system, in other words a power establixhed soley by force as one poster sugested — then turn about is fair play.

    If it about pwer — then blacks are so empowered may so act. :Tirn-about is fair play. But I have no doubt that we would be all beside ourselves in righteuos indignation and invade the joint.

    Butwhat is the price of recompense for what black south africans — and so many other black africans lived under white rule — was and remains quite frightening.

  30. Apparently blacks operating at a lower intelligence quotient have decided that their fekllow whites are worth redemption.

    How Nelson Mandella thwarted the justice of an eye for eye is nothing less thanintellectual, emotional and ethical “genius.”

  31. I want to unequivocally state that I oppose all genocides, be they directed at whitey or anybody else.

  32. Barry says:

    “For a couple of days the focus had been on the green eyeshades issue of whether the multi-trillion-dollar claims had improperly failed to include dynamic scoring in their underlying econometric model. ”

    Not a ‘green eyeshades issue’, but rather the fact that the analysis was 100% garbage, making large assumptions in favor of the desired hypothesis.

  33. Genocide is the extermination of a people for largely benign treats: etnicity, skin color, lineage, location —-

    My comments reflect a response to past treatment — that would not classify as genocide.

  34. I realize I will not be winning any points with Miss Coulter.

  35. Dahlia says:

    “Not a ‘green eyeshades issue’, but rather the fact that the analysis was 100% garbage, making large assumptions in favor of the desired hypothesis.”

    How so? There’s been only heat on the soft-hereditarian side thus far, so my hopes aren’t up, but give it a stab!

  36. T. Sledge says:

    Viking:

    On these matters (as you can readily see) I can claim no expertise.

    I have, however, developed my very own scale for ‘sizing myself up’ (IQ wise) against others.

    It’s a very precise measurement: the sh–load.

    I’m about a tractor trailer sh–load less intelligent than, say, an MIT or Harvard physics major, two box car sh–loads less intelligent than a Nobel prize winner, one snow shovel sh–load less intelligent than Bill Clinton, one snow shovel sh–load more intelligent than George W. Bush, and as for Barack Obama, after that justification for the drone strikes, I’m at least a pile of manure up on him.

  37. Viking says:

    ECI, you won’t be winning any points with any humane and thinking person, whatever you think of Miss Coulter in that regard. The extermination of a people is genocide. Period. Full stop. An exception for a ” response to past treatment” would not disqualify any genocide, as one group can always cite something that some other group did to it. And the response to what they received would inevitably be on the basis of such traits as ethnicity, skin color, etc. (Not “treats”, as you wrote – do some proofreading along with some thinking, please?) White South Africans did indeed oppress those of other races, but they did not exterminate them. And about half of them now would have been either unborn or too young to vote when they elected to make SA a multi-racial democracy, and a solid majority of whites voted to make it so.

    Christopher, I assumed your disavowal of genocide was tongue-in-cheek, as obviously one of the most fragmentary humanity would say. It was, wasn’t it?

    Viking

  38. Seth Owen says: • Website

    This little discussion sums up, in a nutshell, why conservatives and the right, generally, are going to have a heck of a time ever making up their gap with the blacks and browns in American politics.

    It’s not so much the wrong-headedness of their approach to race and IQ (I mean, really, what possible biological factor could possibly even begin to explain the disparity observed with Hispanics, a category of absolutely no biological significance, but purely cultural and linguistic?), which is bad enough

    No, it’s the obtuseness that blinds them to the consequences of even bringing it up. Whatever possible theoretical academic validity some research into human intelligence might have doesn’t even begin to compare to the practical political mischief it brings. If disadvantaged groups didn’t react vehemently against the very notion that there is any excuse for exacerbating their disadvantages because of some alleged difference then it would be shocking.

  39. I was going top permit the genocide matter to run it’s course. But I think I will bail you out of an assumption of your own making.

    I said on the matter of apartheid, turn about was fair play. Now genocidal acts may part of an aprtheid system, and I think white South Africa so engaged. But I was not considering genocide when I said apartheid. If black south africans now in power had decided that the whites were a threat to their lives and decided to engage in ethnic cleansing — given gthe history, I could not blame them. From what would stop a people who considered themselves intellectually, morally and spiritually superior to blacks, mere animals on the lower scales of human development from again gaining power and return to their natural right as superiors? And that being the case — whites remain a threat. That is afterall the standard that has been established by whites throughout the globe.

  40. Genocide is not merely wiping a people. That has occurred theoughout history during conflicts – war, as a means of self defense. At no time do I advocate genocide and at no time do advocate apartheid. I said an reverse color apartheid system would be understandable — not prefereable.

    Now certianly genocide could include the above. But apartheid is not genocide and that was my reference.

    But as to genocide, I guess it is up to argument whether acts of self defense in which those who sought your imprisonment, subservience or destruction upon being exterminated is self defense or genocide.

  41. What is almost amazing to me is that anyone chose to focus on the apartheid genocide matter as opposed to the overall thrust of my argument: The amazing ability for a devestated population not to exact revenge on those responsible.

    Not even to send them packing back to Germany, the UK, France, Seden, Rhodesia, Switzerlad, Denmark, etc. One must marvel at such compassion and yet whites fight even acknowledging their psuedo intellectual, and moral superiority as they cling to the wealth they obtained by butchery, mayhem, graft —

  42. Ah, “And the response to what they received would inevitably be on the basis of such traits as ethnicity, skin color, etc. (Not “treats”, as you wrote – do some proofreading along with some thinking, please?) White South Africans did indeed oppress those of other races, but they did not exterminate them.”

    I am admittedly a lousy writer and I should proof read. But questioning my ability to think is not something I take kindly. State what thought you think is faulty and I will adress the matter. We nonthinking people like to know exactly what thought demonstrates a low IQ as you surely suggest — I will say what I said previously, I never said aprthied was genocide, you did a fine job of assuming as much on your own.

    I do so appreciate the defense, but that was my grand dady that did it. To the extent that the power dynamics and benefits therin went to whites and even to this day their descendents, the matter at hands remains — the aprthied system was based on whiteness — not ancestry. The mechanisms for sutenance and family maintenance were deprived blacks so the white descendents are the beneficiaries of the same and not recognizing their complicity in the matter is a trope I thought was left in on the grade school playground — but we nonthinkers — often make poor gratious assumptions of those who are better thinkers such as yourself— silly of me.

    Now, maybe my thinking accuracy escapes me, but the missing and the dead at the hands of the aprathied sysytem will never be accurately known. And while I must give credit to the whites who intelligently chose not to kill of their workforce, they did engage in killing no small number of blacks. I here tell some of them children. And perhaps those who were killed got off easy — but then as a nonthinker — what do I know?

    ” . . .traits as ethnicity, skin color, etc.” Ah, the traits of an intellectually superior people. I understand you completely.

  43. ” . . .when they elected to make SA a multi-racial democracy, and a solid majority of whites voted to make it so.”

    Hmmm . . . I guess you expevt me to applaude here. Ok. I applaude that white south africans, under threat of dsanctions, and out and out violent revolt chose to finally treat blacks as partners. Like the child who only behaves appropriately under threat of force — or the psychopath —

    ooops, my lack of thinking ability is showing. Do excuse my intellectual failing.

  44. cdugga says:

    I see less than average and more than average people everywhere. What are we going to do about that? There has to be some policy or something. We can’t go on sitting on our hands and do nothing when we know some people are not as smart as other people.

  45. Viking says:

    ECI, you’re misrepresenting me completely. I’m a white Gentile myself, and I brought up the fact that Jews, East Asians, and quite possibly South Asians do better on many IQ and aptitude tests than my general type. Go back and read my first post on this essay if you don’t believe me.

    I wasn’t suggesting you applaud white South Africans for FINALLY doing the right thing, just acknowledge that they’re not evil incarnate, and therefore not worthy of extermination. Nor was I suggesting that you’re incapable of thought; admonitions would be rather useless if you were, wouldn’t they? Rather I’d like you to engage your apparently well-functioning mentality (you’re very clever in cherry-picking your opponent’s words to make him say something he’s not saying) in a more positive manner.

    No, you didn’t say that apartheid was genocide. And I didn’t say or assume that you did. But you DID say that, in a country where blacks outnumber whites by almost nine – one, that if “every black killed whites on sight”, then [w]“ho could blame them”? That does seem to me to call for something close to genocide, at the least, and if apartheid wasn’t genocidal, then why wouldn’t we blame them?

    On a lighter note: T. Sledge, very amusing, if vulgar way of calculating intelligence! Thank you for that.

    Viking

  46. The reference you have made,

    ” in a country where blacks outnumber whites by almost nine – one, that if “every black killed whites on sight”, then [w]“ho could blame them”? That does seem to me to call for something close to genocide, at the least, and if apartheid wasn’t genocidal, then why would we blame them?”

    And I won’t quibble over the exact wording, is what is the practice of empathy. It does not call for anything other than placing myself in their shoes. It says, as I stated before, an understanding of why someone might feel, do or express a particular sentiment. In otherwords, if I were in their shoes, if they did such a thing. I would completely get it. It’s like the abused who finally having enough kills their abuser. I would still note the murder — but have a clear understanding of the abuse — might bring me to a place of — well of courrse they did. And who could blame that person. Even if I did not approve of the act itslef.

    You are repeating the call for action as though empathy is a call for action — it is not. It is an essential human tool in understanding one’s fellow human beings.

    Which brings me to your comments about my lack of writing skills in the same breath as admonishing me to think. Not only am I not cherry picking. I am placing your comments as stated in context. You questioned my intelliugence. Now granted I am not very intellient. But I do have the ability as slow as it is to reason.

    Your skin color and ethnicity are wholly irrelevant, atleast to me. And I reject your notion of my clever as just another slight against my intelligence. It would have been better had you left the matter alone.

    Because empathy as it was expressed is not anything akin to genocide or aparthied and attempting to align my comments in such a manner is a reflection of just how unintelliuegnt you think I am — even if clever.

    As for SA and whether they are evil incarnate. I stand by my comments. If I do the right thing merely because I am going to experience punishment via sanctions or that those I oppressed are in fact going take action against me, then I am behaving as a child — doing that which I must to avoid some consequence, so as with a psychopath, who would do as he will if he or she could avoid getting caught.
    Only the white south african can answer the question of the inner conscience — am I behaving rightly because it is the intrinsic course of moral authority or because I might experience some pain —-

    I completely and totally reject your explaination on the matter as your intent. As poor as my writing, thinking and cleverness may be — I stand where I stood when you so admonished — it’s not the capability of thinking you critiqued – it was the actual thinking. What I don’t buy in any manner is that you think I can and do.

    I will not respond further on the matter.

  47. Surely one can simply observe, that many mothers of too many children, are themselves not of the highest mental calibre.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.