Liberal Race Realism: Clearing Up a Few Things

Liberal Race Realism is very much misunderstood. See the first word there? It’s liberal. We have conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, racists and White nationalists constantly trying to get us on board their ships. We’re never getting a boarding pass. Never! Ever! We will never join you!

You know why? Because we are liberals, with a capital L. Liberals don’t do conservatism, reaction, fascism, racist hate, or White Supremacism/White nationalism.

Here is the conundrum for Left-liberalism:

Just supposing that there are differences between the races that are not caused by oppression, racism, etc. This is painfully obvious to anyone who will look. The Left refuses to look, because the reality of the whole mess is bad for the Left. So we say it doesn’t exist, unscientifically. We wish the reality away.

The question of my site is, given that these differences exist, how do we build a Left response, Left theory and Left project that takes this stuff into account? The Left can respond to any reality, any truth, that exists on this Earth. If it’s fact, we can deal with it and work it into our theory somewhat. By running away from these facts, the Left says that these facts are incompatible with Left theory and practice.

Reactionary race realists (most race realists are reactionaries) are already gleefully predicting that the facts of race realism, when they become too obvious to be denied and are widely believed by the population, are going to spell the death of the Left and liberalism for the foreseeable future. Why? Because the facts of race realism tear asunder every presumption of Left theory and practice, I suppose, namely, that we all have equal abilities and temperaments.

Let’s take this one horrible step further. Let us suppose that race realism means that there are genetic differences between the races that societal intervention cannot alleviate.

That means that Blacks will always have lower intelligence than European Whites, no matter what. This means effectively that Blacks will always have, under the present capitalist regime, lower educational outcomes, lower occupational status, lower incomes, poorer housing and neighborhoods, poorer health care outcomes, less wealth accumulation, etc. than Whites, much of this deriving directly from lower intelligence.

As lower intelligence leads to lesser educational attainment, so it leads to less success in the work arena. Lower income and wealth accumulation follows from this, as does poorer housing and neighborhoods and poorer health outcomes, since we must pay for health care in capitalist America.

Ok, so how do we deal with this reality on Left? What do we do, given these facts, if they are facts?

Because the typical response to saying that Black intelligence will be lower than White intelligence for the forseeable future, with all the negativity to follow, is to move to the Right, specifically towards reaction. Most everyone who explicitly adopts this POV is White, and sooner or later they become reactionaries. Usually they start calling for dismantling civil rights protections. Often they go further into advocating a return to segregation or explicit White nationalism/White separatism. They typically become some sort of Libertarians and advocate ending all social spending.

It’s possible that they take this extreme stance because only in the arena of reactionary thought are views about race realism allowed to flourish.

Why can’t Left-liberalism incorporate these facts into its theory and practice?

People are people, no matter what. A human being is a human being, no matter their IQ.

We educate everyone here in America. No one ever said the purpose of education was to raise people’s IQ’s, and anyway, the evidence from the 3rd World is that education does in fact raise IQ via the Flynn Effect. The purpose of education need not be to remove all racial gaps in IQ and achievement, and if they are genetically mediated, which is possible, then the effort will fail anyway.

Surely a Black person with an 85 IQ benefits a lot more from a 12 years of K-12 education than if they received none at all, correct? Are the reactionaries so insane as to believe that all education is wasted on anyone with an 85 IQ? What about White people with 85 IQ’s (16% of the White population)? Would they do better to get zero years of school as opposed to 12 years? Are 12 years of schooling really wasted on them?

If someone is born with lower intelligence, why must this person suffer in poverty their whole life because of what God ordained? Why must they live in inferior housing and an inferior neighborhood over something that’s not their fault? Why should they have poorer health outcomes and less ability to go to the doctor simply because of how they were born? Because this is where the reactionary race realist argument leads to.

Let’s try something else.

Suppose Blacks had the same abilities as Whites, genetically. All of the problems, including low IQ, were simply due the fact that they are fucking up, often on purpose. If this were true, and strangely enough, this sort of follows from liberal beliefs about genes and environment, I would argue for a harsh response to Blacks. Not necessarily cutting them off altogether, but I would certainly be a bit less likely to help them.

But there’s no evidence that that is true.

If Blacks do have low IQ due to things they cannot control, then, as a socialist, I would argue that there is no reason that the higher IQ group ought to obtain dramatically higher income, wealth, housing, living spaces and health than the lower one.

As much as possible, socialists should try to attempt to more equalize incomes, housing, living spaces and health care access for both groups, the higher IQ and the lower.

It’s not going to be possible to equalize educational access, since that would require fudging the test scores, dumbing down the curriculum, or marking up Black scores due to their being Black and marking down White scores due to their being White.

Wealth will be hard to equalize due to the variable of spending and saving.

Why should Whites be allowed to become dramatically richer, healthier, better housed, and live in better places than Blacks, simply because of how the genetic dice got rolled?

Answer: They have no such right. If both groups were equal, and Whites got that way by simply trying harder, then we could make the argument that the White position is just.

Why should Blacks be forced to become dramatically poorer, less healthy, worse housed, and live in worse places than Whites, simply because of how they were born, a variable that they had no control over whatsoever?

Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.

If you look at the bolded statements above, you can see that far from being a reactionary or racist movement, Liberal Race Realism is actually progressive, even very progressive.

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

38 thoughts on “Liberal Race Realism: Clearing Up a Few Things”

  1. Lindsay,
    High IQ is not always proportional to high income and success.

    For instance many graduates from state universities who majored in business or those who have practical degrees from trade schools are earning as much or more than an ivy league graduate in liberal arts or fine arts.

    Blacks and lesser educated whites are just more likely to spend it on materialistic things. Inner city blacks often drive fancy cars, wear designer shoes, and have the latest gadgets. They prefer to remain in the ghetto or their old neighborhoods.

    High IQ whites also suffer disproportionately from mental illnesses and are more likely to have children with birth defects due to having children late in life.

  2. “Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.”

    Forced? There’s a difference between being forcibly prevented from achieving and being incapable of achieving, unless of course you mean that they’re being forced by nature to achieve less. If, however, that’s what you mean you’re just confirming the “reactionary” quip that leftism is a revolt against nature. You know, a wise man once said that you can throw nature out with a pitchfork, but she will return.

    Also, keep in mind that even if you’re not wrong, people won’t hop ship. Not many folks are simultaneously as kind, bright, independent minded, and most importantly, starry eyed as you’d need to be to accept Liberal RR.

    1. If nature forces outrageous inequalities upon us, whereby those who succeed do not earn their success and those who fail do not earn their failure, it’s up to us social engineers (socialists) to rectify matters.

      Only reactionaries believe “nature rules.” That’s Social Darwinism, conservatism and reaction in a nutshell.

      Liberals and the Left reject “nature rules,” Social Darwinism and the conservatism and reaction that flow from that. We don’t live in caves anymore, you know. The Right acts like we still live in caves. Shows you how far-thinking they are.

  3. Well Robert, I think this post demonstrates why you piss so many people off.

    You’re too “race realist” and “racist” for the anti-racists and leftists, and too liberal and integrationist for the white nationalists.

    All I know is that when people on both the left and right hate you, you’re doing your job! 😉

    1. You are correct in a way, but trust me, here in California, most White racial liberals (that’s most people, even Republicans) agree with my race realism.

      The anti-racists and Leftists that you like to bash so much are scarcely seen around these parts among the White folks. I’m not sure why you are going off on them all the time. There must not be too many Whites who actually believe this shit. I’m sure a lot of minorities, but that figures and who cares what they think anyway. Of course minorities reject race realism. Why would they not.

      It’s really sickening that public opinion is so polarized that as soon as you say, “I’m a race realist,” you are automatically thrown in with White nationalists, Libertarians and other reactionary shits. Sad state of affairs, but I blame the Left and the minorities for that.

      Thing is, most racial liberal White Californians from right to left I meet agree with me. They agree with race realism to some extent, and they are integrationists. I have a hard time understanding why my view is so controversial, except I suppose that PC Police simply won’t allow anyone to say it.

      1. They agree with race realism to some extent, and they are integrationists. I have a hard time understanding why my view is so controversial, except I suppose that PC Police simply won’t allow anyone to say it.

        Yeah, that’s probably it. If you guys do indeed exist in the numbers that you claim, then you’re certainly underground or quiet about your views.

        While I have known/encountered some whites who are not PC and who are pro-white/race realist, they tend to keep it on the down low.

        Other whites are yuppie, SWPL PC liberals, and it’s rather pathetic. And yet these people STILL get called racist! I mean, they might as well go all in as race realists or white nationalists, since they’re going to get charged with racism no matter what they do.

      2. Maybe the whites you know in your part of California are more race realist, but up here, they’re super PC, at least in public company (even among fellow whites).

        But yes, I have known fellow young whites (although they’re in Orange County and tend to be more conservative, so they don’t exactly represent your typical California white liberal), and they agree with many of my views, or at the very least subscribe to my racist, un-PC sense of humor!

  4. Dear Robert
    I believe that it was a socialist who coined the dictum: Form each according to his ability and to each according to his need. That does not suggest a belief in the equality of human beings because those words imply that humans differ in both ability and need. Since when does a leftist have to believe that people are born equal. Leftism is about the desire to reduce inequality of conditions, not about the assumption of equality of talent and other innate advantages.
    Nobody in his right mind believes, for instance, that people are born with equal health. The simple fact is that some are born more robust than others. So what? Can’t we through medicine reduce the inequalities of health which nature produced?
    As to equality between races, we shouldn’t even aim for that. At the most, we should compare people of different races at the same IQ level. Don’t compare blacks with whites but compare blacks with an IQ of, say, 120 with whites who have the same IQ. Favoring blacks simply because they are blacks in order to bring about more racial equality is unjust to the less talented whites.
    Leftits should concentrate on class. I’ll say it again: political correctness was the worst thing that has ever happened to the left.

    Regards. James

  5. Well yeah some conservatives are against any progress and think we still live in caves; and of course “natural,” is not always better, but neither is it always worse or possible to escape from.

    “whereby those who succeed do not earn their success and those who fail do not earn their failure,”

    I don’t think you’ve proven this to be the case and you’re begging the question as to what “earning” actually means. If it’s not succeeding because of ability, IQ or any other measure of merit (since that’s determined by nature) then what is it? If you say effort, well how do we know “effort” is any less determined than IQ? It seems to me that some people are born type A overachievers and some are born naturally lazy with most people somewhere between.

    Maybe I’ll just never get the obsession with everyone having equal wealth.

  6. This is insanity, you give liberals a bad name. This is one of the most racist condenscending things I have heard in my life. And by the way I am not black I am part European part Rroma or Gypsy and people say the same nonsense about Rroma people. It is simply a complete falsehood to say Africans are less intelligent than Europeans to begin with. Africa was home of the most advanced university in the world during the Middle Ages. Even something as old and conservative as the bible recognizes the power and sophistication of African nations in ancient times. Oh yeah and the whole pyramids ancient Egypt thing. Sure you could say the workers are dumb for building pyramids but that may actually be less soul crushing than filling out status reports in a cubicle or being like a phone salesman or something. You suggest that IQ and economic status are related. Yeah because IQ tests are rigged and schools are made by the powers that be. It is not suprising that the upper classes would explain their position in society by simply suggesting they are smarter and we best just let our betters tell us what to do. I know some real dumb black people and some real dumb white people and dumb people of every race. In my opinion Americans who are fully assimilated into American culture tend to be the dumbest people on the planet. And whites in general seem a little dumber than blacks, less adversity and a serious lack of culture and family lead to that. African people have Dr King Barbara Lee(0nly US congresswoman to vote against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq) Angela Davis ect and have been at the forefront of all US movements for change in the last 50 years. There were almost no white people left on the left in 1950 it was the civil rights movement that resulted in the anti war movement and for better or for worse the whole counterculture thing advances in womens rights the environmental movement huge changes to our culture. The African American has served as a bridge between the third world and the empire and acted as the conscience of the nation. They also invented a lot of cool shit

    * air conditioning unit: Frederick M. Jones; July 12, 1949
    * almanac: Benjamin Banneker; Approx 1791
    * auto cut-off switch: Granville T. Woods; January 1,1839
    * auto fishing devise: G. Cook; May 30, 1899
    * automatic gear shift: Richard Spikes; February 28, 1932
    * baby buggy: W.H. Richardson; June 18, 1899
    * bicycle frame: L.R. Johnson; Octber 10, 1899
    * biscuit cutter: A.P. Ashbourne; November 30, 1875
    * blood plasma bag: Charles Drew; Approx. 1945
    * cellular phone: Henry T. Sampson; July 6, 1971
    * chamber commode: T. Elkins; January 3, 1897
    * clothes dryer: G. T. Sampson; June 6, 1862
    * curtain rod: S. R. Scratton; November 30, 1889
    * curtain rod support: William S. Grant; August 4, 1896
    * door knob: O. Dorsey; December 10, 1878
    * door stop: O. Dorsey; December 10, 1878
    * dust pan: Lawrence P. Ray; August 3, 1897
    * egg beater: Willie Johnson; February 5, 1884
    * electric lampbulb: Lewis Latimer; March 21, 1882
    * elevator: Alexander Miles; October 11, 1867
    * eye protector: P. Johnson; November 2, 1880
    * fire escape ladder: J. W. Winters; May 7, 1878
    * fire extinguisher: T. Marshall; October 26, 1872
    * folding bed: L. C. Bailey; July 18, 1899
    * folding chair: Brody & Surgwar; June 11, 1889
    * fountain pen: W. B. Purvis; January 7, 1890
    * furniture caster: O. A. Fisher; 1878
    * gas mask: Garrett Morgan; October 13, 1914
    * golf tee: T. Grant; December 12, 1899
    * hair brush: Lydia O. Newman; November 15,18–
    * hand stamp: Walter B. Purvis; February 27, 1883
    * horse shoe: J. Ricks; March 30, 1885
    * ice cream scooper: A. L. Cralle; February 2, 1897
    * improv. sugar making: Norbet Rillieux; December 10, 1846
    * insect-destroyer gun: A. C. Richard; February 28, 1899
    * ironing board: Sarah Boone; December 30, 1887
    * key chain: F. J. Loudin; January 9, 1894
    * lantern: Michael C. Harvey; August 19, 1884
    * lawn mower: L. A. Burr; May 19, 1889
    * lawn sprinkler: J. W. Smith; May 4, 1897
    * lemon squeezer: J. Thomas White; December 8, 1893
    * lock: W. A. Martin; July 23, 18–
    * lubricating cup: Ellijah McCoy; November 15, 1895
    * lunch pail: James Robinson; 1887
    * mail box: Paul L. Downing; October 27, 1891
    * mop: Thomas W. Stewart; June 11, 1893
    * motor: Frederick M. Jones; June 27, 1939
    * peanut butter: George Washington Carver; 1896
    * pencil sharpener: J. L. Love; November 23, 1897
    * record player arm: Joseph Hunger Dickenson January 8, 1819
    * refrigerator: J. Standard; June 14, 1891
    * riding saddles: W. D. Davis; October 6, 1895
    * rolling pin: John W. Reed; 1864
    * shampoo headrest: C. O. Bailiff; October 11, 1898
    * spark plug: Edmond Berger; February 2, 1839
    * stethoscope: Imhotep; Ancient Egypt
    * stove: T. A. Carrington; July 25, 1876
    * straightening comb: Madam C. J. Walker; Approx 1905
    * street sweeper: Charles B. Brooks; March 17, 1890
    * phone transmitter: Granville T. Woods; December 2, 1884
    * thermostat control: Frederick M. Jones; February 23, 1960
    * traffic light: Garrett Morgan; November 20, 1923
    * tricycle: M. A. Cherry; May 6, 1886
    * typewriter: Burridge & Marshman; April 7, 1885

    1. By the way, Gypsy boy, most of those black inventions you listed are BS.

      And whites in general seem a little dumber than blacks

      Wow, just wow! Yeah, and that’s why blacks are at the bottom of the world’s food chain. So you’re telling me that with all of their continent’s natural resources and their incredible supposed intelligence, they’re STILL at the bottom?

      Yeah, okay.

      And don’t give me this crap about blacks being the “conscience of the nation that has allowed it to progress.”

      Let me ask you something (okay, I know you’re banned, but oh well): Is it any coincidence that as this country has grown more racially diverse and egalitarian that our educational standards, economic prosperity, and other forms of success have gone down the drain?

      To me, it’s no coincidence that ever since Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Movement, we’ve gone from being the best educated country in the developed world to the most poorly educated 1st world country.

      It’s also no coincidence that we now have so many public sector employees.

      Yeah, blacks and racial diversity have really made things super over the past few decades.

      Riiiight.

      By the way, France is right to deport you fuckers. You’re nothing but a bunch of shiftless shits.

      1. If a black man didn’t invent the lemon squeezer, then certainly the great bluesman Robert Johnson inspired it when he wrote “Squeeze my lemon/until the juice runs down my leg.”

    2. Oh great, another list of NIGventions.

      “There were almost no white people left on the left in 1950”

      LOL What history books have you been reading? Probably none considering that gypsies are far more prone to dyslexia than every other gorup of people. Apparently they’re more prone to retardedness too. I guess it fits that you look up to blacks though. Gypsies and abos are the only people on earth with a higher rate of crime and a lower rate of intellegence than blacks. Thank god for the porajmos.

  7. Bay Area Guy
    I dont think educational standards have gone down at all. SATs and ACTs have become more demanding and college admissions are more demanding than ever. More students in working class areas are taking AP and honors courses and attending college.

    1. Sorry, but SAT’s and ACT’s are precisely the problem.

      Rather than educating our kids and providing them with the necessary skills, we’re just teaching them how to take tests.

      All I know is that compared to the rest of the developed world, our educational system is a laughing stock.

  8. Gay Area Guy
    I dont know if you are aware but European students have to take get international bacheloreate. It varies from country to country but in England it counts for 80% of your total grade in Secondary School. Another problem is that Australian Secondary Colleges are based on academic tracks and you are stuck in those fields for life as you can not pick up a subject in University that you did not take in high school. My dad’s cousin in Australia said she envied the American system for this reason as her some was gunho on a career in Radio Broadcasting and neglected College and she wanted him to have a back up plan. The US also has a good Community College system for which reputable universities accept as transfer credits. Europe has not developed such a system and it is harder for a student who graduated from a failing high school to be accepted at reputable universities in Europe. But one thing I like about the British/Australian system is that they require Business and Economics and Information Technology in Secondary Schools.

  9. The problem with liberal race realists is that you look at things from a God’s eye point of view. You think it’s unfair that NAMs are less genetically blessed in certain areas, and you think that “we” (moral white liberals) should redistribute wealth to fix this disparity. But, if liberal policies are consistently followed for several generations, white liberals will become a minority, outnumbered by NAMs, and the wealth just isn’t going to be there to redistribute.

    At the very least, you need to keep the ratio of redistribution beneficiaries to redistribution victims at a workable level. This would require advocating immigration policies and eugenics policies that would make you a pariah among liberals.

  10. It loooks like liberal race realism is really growing big time. This comment was posted on Amren today.

    http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/01/heroic_media_th.php#c710720

    “This seems like an opportune time for me to ask something


    Does Amren consider itself a “conservative organization” across the entire panoply of political issues, or only on its core ones. I support the latter, but I’m kind of a liberal on environmental protection, regulating Wall Street and sex-related issues like abortion rights.

    To me, the importance of the black abortion rate is that it demonstrates a disconnect between their sexual behavior and birth control use. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t really care which one they change. It just bothers me a lot more that they don’t connect one to the other.”

    1. Sorry to burst the bandwagon, but that’s me on AmRen.

      (I used to be RandyB on this board too, but changed because there’s another randy.)

      1. Yeah, liberal race realism has so many contradictions, I’m afraid it’s not going to go anywhere anytime soon. If anything, the Right appears to be growing at the national level in a huge way. Really disturbing, and all because of White people.

      2. thats interesting. I agree with a lot of those views as well. I am very anti-wall street. I used to be more into Austrian economics but the more I studied the financial system I realized the need for regulation, nationalization of banks and a Tobin Tax.

        On the environment I think conservatives are bullshit when they say privat property owners do a better job. Capitalist view is contrary to conservationism since all land needs to be put to use and therefore conservation is a waste of resources that could be but to profit. Conservatives and libertarians suck on conservation. Just compare the parts of California were they were in control such as Orange County to liberal areas and see for your self to differance in conservation.

        I am also fairly liberal and sexual freedom and deeling with mental illnessses made me realize the need for more government sservices for the mentally ill.

        I became a right winger in the past as a knee jerk reaction to the anti-white environments in public middle and HS due to bussing, illegal immigration, and anti-white pc teachers.

    2. Just wait until the ummah start showing up at Planned Parenthood next to the Christian curtain twitchers, if they haven’t already.

      The problem with the left is that in the absence of an economic focus, all you have is a weak coalition of interest groups who don’t much like each other and have very little in common culturally. I can’t be the only white woman on the left who shudders at the thought of beturbaned 9th century jerkoffs and my dumbass, macho La Raza neighbors getting more political power in this country.

      That said, I certainly can’t get with the right wing race realists who fantasize about banning women from higher ed and even taking away the franchise.

      Sooner or later something’s got to give for white liberals who are not on the diversity training gravy train. The CRT-obsessed left is doing nothing for working class white people, male or female, right now.

      1. there isn’t much of a labor movement left so the left seems to be bought off by Jewish Billionaires in Wall Street and Hollywood who don’t give a rats ass about the working class. Its a unholly marriage btw cultural marxism and neoliberal capitalism that runs the modern day left and democratic party.

        1. “Republican Party: Neoliberalism plus opposition to the Cultural Left.”

          What republicans are those? The only thing that republicans oppose on the left is abortion and faggot marriage. They constantly glorify people like the plagiarist Martin Luther King. They’re cultural marxists who throw a bone to southern christians for a few votes.

      2. Latino political power has not caused much problems in the US lately. Personally, I go down the line in the voting booth and vote YES on all the Latinos and vote NO on all the Whites. They’re brought nothing but progressive politics to California. Sadly, they also brought the pro-illegal thing, but I consider the White Right to be the much bigger enemy at this point than illegals.

        I agree with your comments in general though. The Left is totally failing. We are lining up with anti-White idiot forces and that is shoving a lot of Whites into a position where they are voting for the Right. It’s really sorry, because there is nothing wrong with us White people, especially as compared to those other races which are not exactly so exemplary themselves.

        LS on this blog said it right. When you take class out of the Left, there’s nothing left behind. Well of course.

        1. Its the same way the democratics give handouts to buy votes while the republicans cut taxes to do the same but their core economic program is the same when it comes to privitization, deregulation and bailouts of wall street, and offshoring of jobs overseas.

  11. Hey, know it’s a late response, but I came across this in a link.

    1) You are right that in some cosmic sense it’s unfair that people have different attributes than others. The problem is that high IQ people are more productive, and redistribution means taking stuff from more productive people and given it to less productive people. Not only is this the opposite of Marxism — Marx thought that the productive people were having stuff unfairly taken from them — it goes against other, less cosmic notions of fairness.

    2) Are you willing to extend these notions? Take two men. One is tall, athletic, charming. Another is short, fat, ugly, has bad breath, stammers. These differences are genetic, and they are unfair. Likewise the difference between ugly women and beautiful women. Should beautiful women be forced to have sex with unappealing men while alpha males are forced to do it with land whales?

    3) Redistribution affects the amount produced. It reduces incentives on the most productive, and it sets up an infrastructure that can be used for rent-seeking. Whatever the theoretical merits of socialism, it makes everybody worse off.

    4) A group of people with an IQ of 85 simply cannot sustain a civilization. Haiti and Detroit prove that. Why exactly should those of us who can care about their welfare?

    1. All right look. You are wrong. Redistribution as done in modern societies does not disincentivize and socialism does not make everyone worse off. All socieites that practice wealth redistribution are engaging in a form of socialism. The vast majority of these societies are certainly not making everyone worse off.

      Many societies today have IQ’s of ~85. Most North African and Middle Eastern societies, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc., and most of Latin America, have IQ’s in that range. Whatever they are, they are not exactly Haiti (IQ 71) or Detroit.

      You cannot attack socialism on here as this is a socialist website. I ban on that.

Leave a Reply

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