Liberal Race Realism: The Facts and the Project

Of the three major races, Blacks, Caucasians (mostly Europeans were studied) and Asians (mostly NE Asians were studied), Blacks, the world over, on average:

– are the fastest to mature physically;
– have the highest rates of bone and tooth development;
– begin to sit, crawl and walk the earliest;
– have the earliest puberty and sexual development;
– have the highest levels of testosterone;
– are the most sexually active whether measured by the age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency or number of sex partners;
– have the highest rates of twinning;
– have the highest levels of AIDS and HIV;
– have the smallest brains, the lowest IQ’s and educational attainment;
– have the highest rates of crime, including fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, assault, robbery and murder;
– are the most aggressive and mentally unstable;
– have the highest rates of drug and alcohol abuse;
– have the highest rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock children, child abuse and delinquency;
– have the highest rates of unemployment, the highest rates of welfare dependency and the lowest incomes;
– have the most diseases, the highest rates of death at every age and the shortest life expectancy.

To me, the first six of those look pretty good or neutral, but the last eight don’t seem so good, from my White middle-class upbringing anyway.

On every single one of those variables, NE Asians are the polar opposites of Blacks. European Whites are somewhere in between.

Racial liberalism says that all of these facts are due to environment, and none are due to genetics. I find that quite dubious to say the least.

Of course these facts, if a genetic basis is accepted, are a boon to the Right, particularly the hardest Right reactionaries, fascists, Nazis and Libertarians. Of course they are bad news for the Left and liberalism.

One central task of Liberal Race Realism, is, given these facts and their possible genetic inputs, how do we still manage to rescue the Liberal-Left and still construct a Liberal-Left project?

Note! That does not mean abandoning the Liberal-Left to fascism, Nazism, racism, conservatism, reaction of other bullshit. Many assume that if you believe the above, that you must be a racist, fascist, Nazi, conservative or reactionary. Not so at all. It’s possible to believe the above and still be a liberal-Leftist.

We will not abandon liberalism!

How to do that is part of the most difficult project of Liberal Race Realism.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

21 thoughts on “Liberal Race Realism: The Facts and the Project”

  1. The first five of these would appear to have a genetic basis, along with the rates of twinning.

    But the rest? It wouldn’t make sense to declare that there’s one simple answer to them.

  2. I think for some sufficiently liberal persons, whether what happens to someone is because of their traits or not doesn’t really matter.

    There are basically two strains of liberalism (at least as I can think of right now):

    The first liberal tradition, which is more the higher and less folkish tradition, is rooted in liberal philosophy and it’s “noble” values.

    It views it as people’s duty to expend any amount of income and effort to reduce the suffering of any person until everyone is equal in suffering and happiness, regardless of the source of that suffering and without any concern for maintaining any person’s autonomy (a few tend to place a bit of a value on autonomy, but most really don’t).*

    HBD is utterly unproblematic for this first tradition and the people who are really committed to it.

    The second liberal tradition is the one without any real liberal philosophical basis, more of a folkish thing based on guilt and righteous anger. Now, this tradition of liberal thought holds the view that people view Black people or whatever minority as having been “victims” of something or other and efforts to help them as being some form of “paying your debts”.

    This folk liberal philosophy also tends to compatibalise self interest with the other interest of “minorities” (minorities have all these special wonderful qualities and things to teach us and we can really can from utilizing their abilities, which are the same as ours!).

    (This second tradition tends to appeal to people who want to be involved in some kind of glorious struggle for people who have been cheated to get back what they are owed. They dig all these masculine, vengeful warrior for justice overtones and imagery and like the idea of being a principled man fighting to get people back the product of their labor and so on. I find it all very funny and teenage to be honest.)

    So we’ve got these two traditions, the first of which is about getting a better quality of life for the unfortunate to whom the fortunate don’t owe anything at all (in the sense that their existance has made the fortunate better off) and the second of which is about getting people who are oppressed what they are owed (in a kind of angry tea-partyish way). As you can tell, this second tradition doesn’t really interact with the ideas of the first tradition, other than that they’re both aimed in the same direction.

    So HBD will have the following effects:

    a) stopping folks committed to the first liberal tradition spending resources through attempting to give minorities more choice and opportunity, which frankly they will just rerout into straight up redistribution and more proven methods.

    b) wiping out the folk second liberal tradition I’ve described above. I really don’t think there is any saving that because it’s a tissue of lies. You can’t even honestly attempt to save that because there isn’t really anything salvagable there.

    Now what these means as a political movement is that liberalism would lose a lot of people through b). The loss of people committed to these ideas would probably be hard for liberal leaning politics. BUT, as I’ve said the first Liberal tradition would still survive. So the only thing I can suggest is to convert them into liberals of the first type, though the chances of this seem quite slim to me.

    Or to put it in short form – the only way to “save liberalism” is to make it more about altruism and less about getting people what they are owed and less about satisfying your self interest in a non-ignorant way, since the latter two fall to HBD while the former stands quite steady.

    Disclaimer: I’m not a self identified Liberal or Libertarian or any kind of such.

  3. Dear Robert
    As I explained before, rankings are not very useful until we know what the magnitude of the differences between the ranks are. If Peter, Paul and Patrick have respective IQs of 105, 100 and 95, then we have a clear ranking. If their respectives IQs are 150, 100 and 50, we have the same ranking, but the two situations aren’t remotely comparable.
    Take twinning frequence. As far as I know, among whites, it is about 1/90. Let’s assume that among blacks it is 1/88 amd among yellows 1/92. Big deal!
    Regards. James

  4. I thought you’d said before that it isn’t true that blacks have smaller brains, or at least that it isn’t significant? I’ve also heard that the when gathering black skulls, they disproportionately used female skulls, skewing down the size of the black skulls.

    I assume you are making a connection between brain size and intelligence, otherwise there’d be no significant reason to bring it up.

    1. Well, the weight of evidence seems to be that Black brains are smaller, but some say there are problems with the data. Perhaps more research is needed.

      Brain size works like this of the three:

      NE Asians – largest
      Euro Caucasians – intermediate
      Blacks – smallest

      Guess what IQ’s look like? Exactly the same lineup!

      NE Asians – highest
      Euro Caucasians – somewhat lower
      Blacks – much lower

      This is true the world over.

      Notice that the brain size lines up exactly with the IQ’s. I find that very suspicious and it means that something may be up with that.

      True, there are tons of problems with the data, but still, there is that lineup.

      The guy who did the work on the head size does not think that the differences are significant enough to effect intelligence.

      Also, the difference between male and female brains is much larger than Blacks vs NE Asians, but females only have IQ’s 3-4 pts lower.

      So the data is problematic, but still, the lineup *is* there.

  5. Brain size is interesting also because there’s a recent trend of size reduction to the present:

    http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/bmsap_0037-8984_1979_num_6_4_1979#

    Paper on reducing brain sizes. The only place where this is trumped is basically in arctic/cold climate hunter gatherer populations… Relative rankings remain relatively constant.

    Also see –

    http://www.antropologia.uw.edu.pl/SHA/sha-04-03.pdf

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110503823/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

  6. Ah, you’re at it again Robert. Your obsession with [dehumanizing] blacks is pathetic.

    Where’s the evidence to back up your OPINION?

    And who’re these blacks, whites, exactly?

    1. I hate to say it, but I kinda agree with Mel.

      While I’m not her biggest fan, some evidence would be very helpful.

      Because as far as substance abuse and drug use goes, anti-racists argue that whites are actually greater abusers in this regard.

      Who knows? Maybe, they’re wrong.

      1. I get the feeling that you’re being a bit sarcastic. You do agree with Robert, but you just want a bit more proof.

        1. I was being sarcastic, at least with the whole “you’ve got wrath!” comment.

          However, generally, I do agree with Robert’s views.

          I just need some more proof, because some of his claims could very well be refuted.

  7. I will preface this by stating that I am speaking ON AVERAGE here. Clearly, plenty of black people are perfectly adjusted and civilized in the US, but…

    Black people are a problem in the United States; this is obvious unless you are completely oblivious to their behavior. However, I fail to see how traditional liberal policies are going to help them. I live in California where the liberals have tried all their tools to help these people. Well…they still act like savages.

    If you are arguing in favor of these traditional policies, then please correct me. Nonetheless, cash transfers and preferential treatment in hiring and college admissions simply convey a sense of entitlement and take the joy of accomplishment away from those who actually have the talent to compete in a modern society. I would hate to have to question whether my success is due to my talent or just due to a system that rewards me for the failures of my ancestors.

    Moreover, these policies harm society in general by causing resentment among people who do not receive such preferential treatment. In my opinion, discrimination is harmful in any flavor, positive or negative. Black people in America (who, coincidentally, behave far more civilized than their brethren in Africa – I’ve spent significant time in both places) need to be treated the same as everyone else. Until then, they will continue to be a problem for this country.

    Things that can be done to help the community include: providing quality education to those who desire it (I think some charter schools in South Los Angeles are already doing this), and reforming the criminal justice system, especially in California. Moreover, a simple, formal apology (but certainly no reparation payments) for the legacy of Jim Crow and lynching would also be helpful.

    But, currently, we reward the weak among the black population – by providing cash transfers for single mothers, by offering watered down ethnic studies and sociology majors in our universities, etc. I certainly consider myself liberal in the sense that people should be given a fair chance and equal treatment in the eyes of the law, but I cannot continue to support the systems of positive discrimination and welfare which, coupled with a rotten criminal justice system, reward failure and continue to condemn this population to a backward, uncivilized existence.

    1. Both the House and the Senate apologized for slavery. I don’t know how much they delved into Jim Crow, but I do recall it being briefly mentioned.

      By the way, the Senate resolution specifically stated that the apology could in no way be used to push for reparations.

      1. To clarify, when I talked about the House and Senate apology, I wasn’t referring to California, but the country as a whole.

  8. What liberalism does well is make sure everyone is minimally provided for — food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, Social Security, Medicare/-caid, and unemployment compensation work well as long as the recipients have enough core values that they wouldn’t take benefits they either didn’t deserve or hadn’t earned. Making sure basic needs are provided benefits everyone by reducing the societal disruption that results from desperation.

    What it doesn’t do well is decide who should be the winners in a meritocracy. Today’s liberalism is a faith-based belief that lack of achievement by demographic groups is prima-facie proof that society has erected barriers to their advancement. For example, when Lawrence Summers suggested women are less inclined to science than men, the liberal establishment was zero interested in debating truth or falsehood, only in silencing such heresy.

    The civil rights laws of the 60s implemented (what should have been all along) the principle that every American enjoys the same basic rights under a republican government, and that a majority can’t just vote to make lesser citizens out of others. That’s good liberalism. Deciding that corporate board rooms don’t have enough blacks and need Diversity to put them there, is not an application of liberal principles likely to be successful to anyone but the direct beneficiaries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *