Heretical HBD vs. The NAXALT Inquisition: A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st Century
Was the theory of evolution and its myriad of research and texts inspired by Darwin's The Origin of Species largely resisted in the early 20th century? Despite popular culture's view of history through virtue-signaling lenses, the same that falsely purport the supposed rubes of antiquity as flat-earthers [*1], evolution was in most biology textbooks in the 1920s, including the most popular one taught in American schools [*2]. As an anomaly, in 1925, Tennessee outlawed any public school teacher from teaching "any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the bible and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animals." [*3] High School teacher, John Scopes' resistance to this law is heralded as a virtuous victory for free speech against backwater rubes of the South [*4] in what we colloquially refer to today as the Scopes Monkey Trial. In reality, Scopes agreed to an orchestrated arrest, and the trial was a publicity stunt instigated by the ACLU and promoted by city officials to bring in tourists to observe the trial as theater [*5]. Nonetheless, Scopes' long-term moral victory (he was convicted and forced to pay a fine that was later overturned on a technicality) made for a legendary tale for leftists to jeer the backwater South for what may be centuries to come [*6].
Popular culture is replete with virtue-signaling distortions of early 20th century views on evolution [*7]. The media love to pounce on any school boards that sway from a leftist agenda [*8] (for one example, instruction must sufficiently conform to the climate change narrative and omit any contra arguments or evidence [*9]). A school board taking any action to even teach theories counter to evolution is forbidden. The media hit pieces have made sufficient examples, devoid of any nuance or objectivity, to punish and/or deter any violators or challengers of their narrative [*10].
But putting that all aside for a moment, why is/was there any resistance to the theory of evolution at all? To some, a belief that God designed humans is the glue that holds their moral system together. The degree to which humans require a raison de'tre to live a fulfilling life is the degree to which anything that even moves the goal posts to establish their moral system, let alone cracks the foundation, becomes hostile. And if God didn't directly create humans but allowed them to evolve, do God's rules for human conduct crumble? Many argue no [*11]. But in a pre-evolution-aware society, you can certainly see how this would've caused some serious cracks in that Christian-based foundation for many.
Despite protestations of nihilist post-modernism against any moral systems, let alone a Christian one, the modern left has such a system. A raison de'tre, one in which God is subsumed to some degree by the State and replaced with the nebulous concept of Social Justice [*12]. The State exists to do good for the many with a focus on results for the group over the individual, especially groups perceived as underprivileged. Part and parcel with this is a goal of material equality, where possible, between all groups, particular races and sexes. If disparity between racial groups or genders exists, it must be the result of an unjust power dynamic between those groups, oppressor-oppressee, and it is the duty of the State to remedy this imbalance wherever possible. In legal parlance, we call this "Adverse Impact" theory, in which the mere existence of demographic disparity is substituted for proof of improper ist/ite/obic practices by the target as sufficient for the claimants and, more importantly, their champions, to pursue claims or reforms.
An important distinction must be addressed, which is often sidestepped or conflated by the Social Justice advocate. Are we correcting for outcome or ensuring equality of opportunity? We would not, for example, presume women are being under-prosecuted due to their 126:1,352 (11x more men) representation in American prisons [*13] (putting aside their sentencing disparity in comparable circumstances as "men receive 62% longer sentences on average" and women are "twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.") [*14]). We accept that men are committing more crimes and do not accept a premise that the justice system unfairly targets men. Quite the contrary [*15].
But are whites and Northeastern Asians just earning more money and happen to be in more intellectually demanding positions more often compared to other demographic groups due to their proportional effort and/or abilities, or is there a secret oppressive system influencing that result that we assume does not exist for the aforementioned 11x disparity?
Enter the third rail of evolution: Human Biodiversity or HBD. If we are to assume that humans, like all organisms of Earth, evolved from different species and sub-species of organisms, should we presume that all populations of humans have evolved to be essentially one-in-the-same? Or do humans have sub-species from one-another? If the former, race doesn't exist and the left's narrative of Social Justice identity politics detonates.
Since different races exist, could different populations of humans have evolved different attributes outside of their skin tone? If not, then races would not meaningfully exist, only skin colors, and calling a human a member of one race or another would be as nonsensical as calling yellow a different race of crayon.
Popular culture is replete with virtue-signaling distortions of early 20th century views on evolution [*7]. The media love to pounce on any school boards that sway from a leftist agenda [*8] (for one example, instruction must sufficiently conform to the climate change narrative and omit any contra arguments or evidence [*9]). A school board taking any action to even teach theories counter to evolution is forbidden. The media hit pieces have made sufficient examples, devoid of any nuance or objectivity, to punish and/or deter any violators or challengers of their narrative [*10].
But putting that all aside for a moment, why is/was there any resistance to the theory of evolution at all? To some, a belief that God designed humans is the glue that holds their moral system together. The degree to which humans require a raison de'tre to live a fulfilling life is the degree to which anything that even moves the goal posts to establish their moral system, let alone cracks the foundation, becomes hostile. And if God didn't directly create humans but allowed them to evolve, do God's rules for human conduct crumble? Many argue no [*11]. But in a pre-evolution-aware society, you can certainly see how this would've caused some serious cracks in that Christian-based foundation for many.
Despite protestations of nihilist post-modernism against any moral systems, let alone a Christian one, the modern left has such a system. A raison de'tre, one in which God is subsumed to some degree by the State and replaced with the nebulous concept of Social Justice [*12]. The State exists to do good for the many with a focus on results for the group over the individual, especially groups perceived as underprivileged. Part and parcel with this is a goal of material equality, where possible, between all groups, particular races and sexes. If disparity between racial groups or genders exists, it must be the result of an unjust power dynamic between those groups, oppressor-oppressee, and it is the duty of the State to remedy this imbalance wherever possible. In legal parlance, we call this "Adverse Impact" theory, in which the mere existence of demographic disparity is substituted for proof of improper ist/ite/obic practices by the target as sufficient for the claimants and, more importantly, their champions, to pursue claims or reforms.
An important distinction must be addressed, which is often sidestepped or conflated by the Social Justice advocate. Are we correcting for outcome or ensuring equality of opportunity? We would not, for example, presume women are being under-prosecuted due to their 126:1,352 (11x more men) representation in American prisons [*13] (putting aside their sentencing disparity in comparable circumstances as "men receive 62% longer sentences on average" and women are "twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.") [*14]). We accept that men are committing more crimes and do not accept a premise that the justice system unfairly targets men. Quite the contrary [*15].
But are whites and Northeastern Asians just earning more money and happen to be in more intellectually demanding positions more often compared to other demographic groups due to their proportional effort and/or abilities, or is there a secret oppressive system influencing that result that we assume does not exist for the aforementioned 11x disparity?
Enter the third rail of evolution: Human Biodiversity or HBD. If we are to assume that humans, like all organisms of Earth, evolved from different species and sub-species of organisms, should we presume that all populations of humans have evolved to be essentially one-in-the-same? Or do humans have sub-species from one-another? If the former, race doesn't exist and the left's narrative of Social Justice identity politics detonates.
Since different races exist, could different populations of humans have evolved different attributes outside of their skin tone? If not, then races would not meaningfully exist, only skin colors, and calling a human a member of one race or another would be as nonsensical as calling yellow a different race of crayon.
Are our differences all cultural, a result of 100% nurture? Or are some differences genetic and between populations? And are those differences merely in skin tone as a result of melanin content from varying degrees of exposure or relative lack-thereof to the sun? Or are there other differences, like in muscle fibers, hair texture, height, bone structure, gestation periods, and susceptibility to certain diseases [*16]? If the differences are beyond mere skin color and eye shape, where do they end?
And do those differences stop before the brain? What if, just like genetic factors in body types and muscle fibers may cause a disproportionate number of blacks in the NBA per the population of possible candidates, genetic factors in brains may cause a disproportionate number of Northeastern Asians and whites in certain higher-paying more intellectually rigorous jobs?
And who dares touch this third rail? Not many. Doing so effectively ended the career of Nobel prize-winning physicist Dr. James Watson, known for his discovery of the double-helix in DNA [*17]. When the late Phillipe Rushton, the leading researcher on race and intelligence (his papers can be viewed at his memorial site here) [*18] debated David Suzuki in '89, nothing was refuted, but Rushton's career was threatened vehemently to lavish applause [*19]. After examples of that magnitude, anyone with anything to lose would be crazy to discuss HBD in public. The deranged social pressures, even a tenured academic faces, are devastating (even a cursory search reveals countless more examples of attacks); it's best to keep quiet for your economic health unless you're anonymous or have nothing to lose.
And who was it that revealed the emperor had no cloths? A High School student of Northeast Asian descent in a science fair project recently hypothesized an answer to why his, likely Social Justice infused, accelerated Humanities and International Studies Program (HISP) was proportionally dominated by whites and Northeastern Asians [*20], a question we can infer was asked by his teacher for students to publicize their answers to for the science fair. The student's perhaps trollish hypothesis: "If the average IQs of blacks, Southeast Asians, and Hispanics are lower than the IQs of whites and Northeastern Asians, then the racial disproportionality in HISP is justified." Of course, his project was taken down and he's being referred for possible disciplinary action for daring to propose a politically incorrect answer.
Yet differences in IQ among the races have been known for over 100 years, with hundreds of different tests corroborating a standard deviation of 15 point intervals between sub-Saharan Africans and African Americans (who are less black than the latter group), another 15 ahead for whites, with Northeast Asians yet another 5 points ahead [*21], including use of non-verbal non-timed tests (like the Ravens Progressive Matrices IQ test) [*22] to control for culture and linguistic bias. The student was only pointing out what scientists who dare study this topic have known for over a century.
And when we look to the bell curve distribution of IQ, we also see a higher distribution along the low and high ends of the curve for men compared to women (men and women average the same) [*23] that explains men's disproportionate role in more intellectually taxing professions (nearly double the number of 130+ IQ men than women) [*24], which may explain why women in the 1920s received roughly the same proportion of Nobel prizes in science as they have over the past 100 years [*25] despite dramatic and undeniable advances in what feminists would call progress relative to the 1920s.
People can argue IQ isn't a valid metric of performance. Statistically, they'd be wrong, as analysis by Herrnstein and Murray published in The Bell Curve [*26] shows undeniably devastating correlative evidence, analyzing hundreds of pages of metadata, between IQ and performance for cognitively demanding goals through all aspects of life [*27]. This includes a sad revelation of how little education does to boost IQ, resulting in a temporary boost (some studies show 7 points) that regresses back in later years (The Bell Curve, Chapter 17: Raising Cognitive Ability) [*28].
The exact degree to which IQ is genetic versus environmental is not yet known. But twin studies show IQ is hereditary/genetic to a degree upwards of 80% [*29] and other studies put the degree around 50% [*30]. Yet to the degree IQ measures intelligence and the degree intelligence determines who gets into advanced academic programs is the degree to which we would expect the demographic breakup of an advanced placement class to correlate not only with the demographics of the sample community but also to the IQ distribution within those demographics relative to the intelligence requirements of advanced academic programs. Hence, the degree to which Social Justice demands academic programs' demographic makeup reflect the local or national community without accounting for variation in IQ is the degree to which it discriminates against individuals of Northeastern Asian and white descent.
There are two common refrains against such statements. The first is persuasive redefinition [*31], as applied here, involving (1) the quiet redefining of the pejorative "racist" to mean anyone who believes there are group differences in attributes between races and then (2) defaming a target who believes in HBD with that pejorative. This gives the persuasive redefiner the ability to defame their target while hiding behind plausible deniability when pressed on what they mean by the term. This technique works in character-limited social media shaming rituals, but it's harder to use in more academic settings, because the dishonesty of the person redefining "racism" is easy to call out in conversation since it's inflammatory enough rhetoric to command a confrontation and expose the persuasive redefiner as a charlatan.
The second refrain is to claim Not All [Insert Group] Are Like That (NAXALT). It's a misdirection, as the person arguing that HBD exists never said All [Insert Group] Are Like That. Just because the average IQ for a sub-Saharan African is 70 [*32], doesn't mean there aren't sub-Saharan Africans with 140 IQs. Yet NAXALT is the more effective refrain, because it doesn't invoke the pejorative "racist," cornering the HBD proponent into a fight or flight (usually fight) response, but invites her to agree with the NAXALTer. Yes. Not All [insert any group] Are Like That. The HBD advocate can agree, and the NAXALTer can quietly exit the conversation and dismiss the argument for HBD, later sharing the no-doubt horrifying experience the NAXALTer had listening to the HBD comment, allowing less intelligent peers to infer the HBD proponent was a racist.
Not all NAXALT tactics are as subtle. Some act as a hostile inquisition, evidenced by the recent interview of Jordan Peterson by Kathy Newman, in which Newman continuously lied about what Peterson said by rephrasing his argument into a question (i.e. "You're just saying that's the way it is!"), forcing him to continuously correct the misstatements. [*33].
Yet the NAXALT Inquisition points to a problem belied by its own ideology. It measures groups in order to make proposals on public policy, and Social Justice identity politics boils down to the premise that society is unjust and needs the State to remedy demographic disparities ala the theory of Adverse Impact. The individual X in NAXALT isn't what Social Justice aims to remedy. The aim is to enhance the group, to bring it in line relative to its proportion of the population. Yet to the degree group differences are a result of genetic factors while Social Justice proponents ignore those differences in favor of advocating positions be allocated proportionally by population is the degree to which the very inverse of what Social Justice purports to remedy is occurring. That is Northeast Asians and whites being displaced from certain positions in favor of less qualified people through systematic State-sponsored oppression.
Considering only a certain number of positions in society exist to satisfy their respective market demands, society suffers as a whole as less qualified individuals are shoe-horned into job roles via different variants of demographic quota systems, displacing people that would have been more qualified. With some occupations, this is of little social consequence outside of less economic efficiency (and to the Social Justice Marxist, this'd be a low priority). But with others, the results become more dire. Structures are more likely to crumble as the quality of engineers and architects is sacrificed. People are more likely to suffer misdiagnoses and botched surgeries as less qualified doctors fill the roles of the potentially more qualified ones. Conceding demographic differences in IQ that may be partly genetic detonates the most sacred premise of Social Justice: that any disparity between demographics in positions is presumed to be a result of malice or ist/ite/obic bias, whether explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious.
This is why HBD is presumed heretical, to be opposed at all costs. NAXALT is a straw man argument, inferring the most dreaded of pejoratives, the career-ending Scarlet letters, all in civilized society fear: Racist, Sexist, Homo/Islamo/phobic, Antisemetic, etc. Acknowledgement of HBD does not mean "All Are Like That." A true racist (or other ist) would believe that and judge an individual based on the tendency of the demographic group. Yet imagine three men in your backyard in the middle of the night as opposed to three women. Are you a sexist for calling the police on the men but not the women? At what point does knowledge of proportional tendencies within demographics mean risk calculations regarding an individual shouldn't be made? We can all agree that judgment of a candidate for a job due to his/her race or sex is improper, but is calling the police on the three men in your backyard at the middle of the night but not the women equally improper?
While an individual shouldn't be judged by the tendencies within a group, judging people based on group identity is inherent to Social Justice. And in order for those of the Social Justice persuasion to avoid implicating themselves with the aforementioned Scarlet letters they love to stamp on others, it is imperative that they believe all disparities in human evolution within the brain were miraculously avoided.
The academic community, dominated by the left [*34], operates on the assumption that humanity functions largely like a glass of water. The academics are the glass that shape the water, and by changing the shape of the glass, they control the form of the water. The degree to which humanity is not like a liquid being shaped by a glass we call culture (or schools), but has a degree of its own solid form, is the degree to which academics have less power over humanity. Therefore there can be no genetic demographic differences in cognitive ability. All differences must be injustices that the State can control through the right programs or laws.
Much like the left scorns rubes of yore for being on the wrong side of history during the Scopes Monkey Trial spectacle, we have a new era. The aforementioned student's project was taken down and he is being investigated. A violation of his First Amendment rights to political speech could not be more obvious, even if we presume he was trolling his teachers with an exercise in the most heinous thought crime. You can argue his First Amendment rights are superseded by the school's to need to curtail substantial disruption to the learning environment [*35]. Yet, by that logic, you could also argue Tennessee's 1925 law prohibiting a public school teacher from teaching "any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the bible" was also needed to curtail school disruption, seeing as evolution is seen as a far more a controversial topic in the 1920s compared to today.
But is evolution really less controversial? We have the same issue on the forefront, opening the school up to potential litigation for violation of First Amendment rights. How fascinating would it be to see a 21st Century version of the Scopes Monkey trial, this one a civil claim, where the left's most sacrosanct beliefs are put on trial as they are exposed for censoring thoughts that subvert their worldview?
Ironically, there's more evidence that race differences in IQ are genetic/hereditary than evidence that "man descended from a lower order of animals." Hundreds of tests on different races have been measured, in strict accordance with the scientific method, using non-verbal and non-timed testing (i.e. Ravens Progressive Matrices) and twin-studies have substantiated the genetic factor as between 50-80%. The evidence for humans descending from lower organisms certainly exists, via fossil examination, carbon dating, genome comparison, etc. [*36], but is not nearly as direct.
Without some type of 21st Century Scopes Monkey-type spectacle to publicly vent this debate and embarrass the opponents of HBD existence, it's doubtful the NAXALT Inquisition of academia and the media will concede differences in race and IQ. But eventually, they'll have to, as their grasp on the gates of information loosens and Generation Z comes of age, the most conservative generation since World War 2 [*37], that doesn't frequent mainstream news outlets nearly as much [*38], and are consequently much more likely to discover information on HBD like that linked to here.
But what are the ultimate consequences of accepting HBD? Do they mean that society will turn into rabid racists, unfairly oppressing all those outside of Northeastern Asian and general white descent? Did accepting evolution nullify Christianity or other religions? Did it cause decay in the moral virtues of society? People can come to different conclusions on that, but it is possible to have a clear anti-post-modern moral system without relying on divinely inspired religious ethics [*39] and have similar ethics to those more expressly spelled out in Christian and other religious texts for society to follow. In other words, religious people adapted to the science of evolution, and moved on without the world turning into Sodom and Gomorrah or movies like The Purge.
Some ex-religious people may have used evolution as an excuse to join morally corrupt systems like Alister Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt" occultism or Anton LaVey's nihilist Satanism. Similarly, some socialists use HBD as an excuse to promote white nationalism [*40], whereby people of non-white ethnic descent are forcibly moved outside a set of geographic boundaries while those remaining are free to enjoy the spoils of the socialist State. Far more tame but still controversial, others use HBD to advocate repealing 14th Amendment-inspired rules and laws prohibiting large group disassociations from certain ethnicities [*41].
And do those differences stop before the brain? What if, just like genetic factors in body types and muscle fibers may cause a disproportionate number of blacks in the NBA per the population of possible candidates, genetic factors in brains may cause a disproportionate number of Northeastern Asians and whites in certain higher-paying more intellectually rigorous jobs?
And who dares touch this third rail? Not many. Doing so effectively ended the career of Nobel prize-winning physicist Dr. James Watson, known for his discovery of the double-helix in DNA [*17]. When the late Phillipe Rushton, the leading researcher on race and intelligence (his papers can be viewed at his memorial site here) [*18] debated David Suzuki in '89, nothing was refuted, but Rushton's career was threatened vehemently to lavish applause [*19]. After examples of that magnitude, anyone with anything to lose would be crazy to discuss HBD in public. The deranged social pressures, even a tenured academic faces, are devastating (even a cursory search reveals countless more examples of attacks); it's best to keep quiet for your economic health unless you're anonymous or have nothing to lose.
And who was it that revealed the emperor had no cloths? A High School student of Northeast Asian descent in a science fair project recently hypothesized an answer to why his, likely Social Justice infused, accelerated Humanities and International Studies Program (HISP) was proportionally dominated by whites and Northeastern Asians [*20], a question we can infer was asked by his teacher for students to publicize their answers to for the science fair. The student's perhaps trollish hypothesis: "If the average IQs of blacks, Southeast Asians, and Hispanics are lower than the IQs of whites and Northeastern Asians, then the racial disproportionality in HISP is justified." Of course, his project was taken down and he's being referred for possible disciplinary action for daring to propose a politically incorrect answer.
Yet differences in IQ among the races have been known for over 100 years, with hundreds of different tests corroborating a standard deviation of 15 point intervals between sub-Saharan Africans and African Americans (who are less black than the latter group), another 15 ahead for whites, with Northeast Asians yet another 5 points ahead [*21], including use of non-verbal non-timed tests (like the Ravens Progressive Matrices IQ test) [*22] to control for culture and linguistic bias. The student was only pointing out what scientists who dare study this topic have known for over a century.
And when we look to the bell curve distribution of IQ, we also see a higher distribution along the low and high ends of the curve for men compared to women (men and women average the same) [*23] that explains men's disproportionate role in more intellectually taxing professions (nearly double the number of 130+ IQ men than women) [*24], which may explain why women in the 1920s received roughly the same proportion of Nobel prizes in science as they have over the past 100 years [*25] despite dramatic and undeniable advances in what feminists would call progress relative to the 1920s.
People can argue IQ isn't a valid metric of performance. Statistically, they'd be wrong, as analysis by Herrnstein and Murray published in The Bell Curve [*26] shows undeniably devastating correlative evidence, analyzing hundreds of pages of metadata, between IQ and performance for cognitively demanding goals through all aspects of life [*27]. This includes a sad revelation of how little education does to boost IQ, resulting in a temporary boost (some studies show 7 points) that regresses back in later years (The Bell Curve, Chapter 17: Raising Cognitive Ability) [*28].
The exact degree to which IQ is genetic versus environmental is not yet known. But twin studies show IQ is hereditary/genetic to a degree upwards of 80% [*29] and other studies put the degree around 50% [*30]. Yet to the degree IQ measures intelligence and the degree intelligence determines who gets into advanced academic programs is the degree to which we would expect the demographic breakup of an advanced placement class to correlate not only with the demographics of the sample community but also to the IQ distribution within those demographics relative to the intelligence requirements of advanced academic programs. Hence, the degree to which Social Justice demands academic programs' demographic makeup reflect the local or national community without accounting for variation in IQ is the degree to which it discriminates against individuals of Northeastern Asian and white descent.
There are two common refrains against such statements. The first is persuasive redefinition [*31], as applied here, involving (1) the quiet redefining of the pejorative "racist" to mean anyone who believes there are group differences in attributes between races and then (2) defaming a target who believes in HBD with that pejorative. This gives the persuasive redefiner the ability to defame their target while hiding behind plausible deniability when pressed on what they mean by the term. This technique works in character-limited social media shaming rituals, but it's harder to use in more academic settings, because the dishonesty of the person redefining "racism" is easy to call out in conversation since it's inflammatory enough rhetoric to command a confrontation and expose the persuasive redefiner as a charlatan.
The second refrain is to claim Not All [Insert Group] Are Like That (NAXALT). It's a misdirection, as the person arguing that HBD exists never said All [Insert Group] Are Like That. Just because the average IQ for a sub-Saharan African is 70 [*32], doesn't mean there aren't sub-Saharan Africans with 140 IQs. Yet NAXALT is the more effective refrain, because it doesn't invoke the pejorative "racist," cornering the HBD proponent into a fight or flight (usually fight) response, but invites her to agree with the NAXALTer. Yes. Not All [insert any group] Are Like That. The HBD advocate can agree, and the NAXALTer can quietly exit the conversation and dismiss the argument for HBD, later sharing the no-doubt horrifying experience the NAXALTer had listening to the HBD comment, allowing less intelligent peers to infer the HBD proponent was a racist.
Not all NAXALT tactics are as subtle. Some act as a hostile inquisition, evidenced by the recent interview of Jordan Peterson by Kathy Newman, in which Newman continuously lied about what Peterson said by rephrasing his argument into a question (i.e. "You're just saying that's the way it is!"), forcing him to continuously correct the misstatements. [*33].
Yet the NAXALT Inquisition points to a problem belied by its own ideology. It measures groups in order to make proposals on public policy, and Social Justice identity politics boils down to the premise that society is unjust and needs the State to remedy demographic disparities ala the theory of Adverse Impact. The individual X in NAXALT isn't what Social Justice aims to remedy. The aim is to enhance the group, to bring it in line relative to its proportion of the population. Yet to the degree group differences are a result of genetic factors while Social Justice proponents ignore those differences in favor of advocating positions be allocated proportionally by population is the degree to which the very inverse of what Social Justice purports to remedy is occurring. That is Northeast Asians and whites being displaced from certain positions in favor of less qualified people through systematic State-sponsored oppression.
Considering only a certain number of positions in society exist to satisfy their respective market demands, society suffers as a whole as less qualified individuals are shoe-horned into job roles via different variants of demographic quota systems, displacing people that would have been more qualified. With some occupations, this is of little social consequence outside of less economic efficiency (and to the Social Justice Marxist, this'd be a low priority). But with others, the results become more dire. Structures are more likely to crumble as the quality of engineers and architects is sacrificed. People are more likely to suffer misdiagnoses and botched surgeries as less qualified doctors fill the roles of the potentially more qualified ones. Conceding demographic differences in IQ that may be partly genetic detonates the most sacred premise of Social Justice: that any disparity between demographics in positions is presumed to be a result of malice or ist/ite/obic bias, whether explicit or implicit, conscious or unconscious.
This is why HBD is presumed heretical, to be opposed at all costs. NAXALT is a straw man argument, inferring the most dreaded of pejoratives, the career-ending Scarlet letters, all in civilized society fear: Racist, Sexist, Homo/Islamo/phobic, Antisemetic, etc. Acknowledgement of HBD does not mean "All Are Like That." A true racist (or other ist) would believe that and judge an individual based on the tendency of the demographic group. Yet imagine three men in your backyard in the middle of the night as opposed to three women. Are you a sexist for calling the police on the men but not the women? At what point does knowledge of proportional tendencies within demographics mean risk calculations regarding an individual shouldn't be made? We can all agree that judgment of a candidate for a job due to his/her race or sex is improper, but is calling the police on the three men in your backyard at the middle of the night but not the women equally improper?
While an individual shouldn't be judged by the tendencies within a group, judging people based on group identity is inherent to Social Justice. And in order for those of the Social Justice persuasion to avoid implicating themselves with the aforementioned Scarlet letters they love to stamp on others, it is imperative that they believe all disparities in human evolution within the brain were miraculously avoided.
The academic community, dominated by the left [*34], operates on the assumption that humanity functions largely like a glass of water. The academics are the glass that shape the water, and by changing the shape of the glass, they control the form of the water. The degree to which humanity is not like a liquid being shaped by a glass we call culture (or schools), but has a degree of its own solid form, is the degree to which academics have less power over humanity. Therefore there can be no genetic demographic differences in cognitive ability. All differences must be injustices that the State can control through the right programs or laws.
Much like the left scorns rubes of yore for being on the wrong side of history during the Scopes Monkey Trial spectacle, we have a new era. The aforementioned student's project was taken down and he is being investigated. A violation of his First Amendment rights to political speech could not be more obvious, even if we presume he was trolling his teachers with an exercise in the most heinous thought crime. You can argue his First Amendment rights are superseded by the school's to need to curtail substantial disruption to the learning environment [*35]. Yet, by that logic, you could also argue Tennessee's 1925 law prohibiting a public school teacher from teaching "any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the bible" was also needed to curtail school disruption, seeing as evolution is seen as a far more a controversial topic in the 1920s compared to today.
But is evolution really less controversial? We have the same issue on the forefront, opening the school up to potential litigation for violation of First Amendment rights. How fascinating would it be to see a 21st Century version of the Scopes Monkey trial, this one a civil claim, where the left's most sacrosanct beliefs are put on trial as they are exposed for censoring thoughts that subvert their worldview?
Ironically, there's more evidence that race differences in IQ are genetic/hereditary than evidence that "man descended from a lower order of animals." Hundreds of tests on different races have been measured, in strict accordance with the scientific method, using non-verbal and non-timed testing (i.e. Ravens Progressive Matrices) and twin-studies have substantiated the genetic factor as between 50-80%. The evidence for humans descending from lower organisms certainly exists, via fossil examination, carbon dating, genome comparison, etc. [*36], but is not nearly as direct.
Without some type of 21st Century Scopes Monkey-type spectacle to publicly vent this debate and embarrass the opponents of HBD existence, it's doubtful the NAXALT Inquisition of academia and the media will concede differences in race and IQ. But eventually, they'll have to, as their grasp on the gates of information loosens and Generation Z comes of age, the most conservative generation since World War 2 [*37], that doesn't frequent mainstream news outlets nearly as much [*38], and are consequently much more likely to discover information on HBD like that linked to here.
But what are the ultimate consequences of accepting HBD? Do they mean that society will turn into rabid racists, unfairly oppressing all those outside of Northeastern Asian and general white descent? Did accepting evolution nullify Christianity or other religions? Did it cause decay in the moral virtues of society? People can come to different conclusions on that, but it is possible to have a clear anti-post-modern moral system without relying on divinely inspired religious ethics [*39] and have similar ethics to those more expressly spelled out in Christian and other religious texts for society to follow. In other words, religious people adapted to the science of evolution, and moved on without the world turning into Sodom and Gomorrah or movies like The Purge.
Some ex-religious people may have used evolution as an excuse to join morally corrupt systems like Alister Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt" occultism or Anton LaVey's nihilist Satanism. Similarly, some socialists use HBD as an excuse to promote white nationalism [*40], whereby people of non-white ethnic descent are forcibly moved outside a set of geographic boundaries while those remaining are free to enjoy the spoils of the socialist State. Far more tame but still controversial, others use HBD to advocate repealing 14th Amendment-inspired rules and laws prohibiting large group disassociations from certain ethnicities [*41].
And what if accepting HBD leads to a resurgence in State sponsored eugenics? When William Jennings Bryan defended the prohibition of teaching evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial, he similarly argued accepting evolution would lead to State enforced eugenics. Indeed, eugenics was a popular movement that gained rapid ground in the 1920s, resulting in questionable State practices later deemed unconstitutional (i.e. sterilizing purportedly retarded people) [*42]. The popularity of evolution likely played some role in sparking the public's imagination for different public policies to steer humanity's evolution in more socially positive directions, blind to the horrifying effects such policies had on individual liberty.
Regardless of any of the above, HBD will eventually be accepted public knowledge, just like evolution is today. And the more the left gaslights the public on its reality and punishes its heretics with the NAXALT Inquisition, the more the upcoming Generation Z may accept some logistically uglier proposals stemming from HBD, like ethno-nationalism and/or eugenics, as the left's credibility on the topic completely erodes and there are no legitimate political forces to put a break on anyone who'd get carried away with any conclusions to address HBD. After all, who would trust the political right today if we still denied humanity's highly probable evolution? The sooner the left acknowledges HBD and works with the right to modify its position, like Christians did with evolution, the sooner we can end the maddening demands of Adverse Impact and focus the political debate on areas more productive to human flourishing.
UPDATE: A prior version of this post included a reference to the Ashkenazi Jewish IQ, 113-115 range. The source was a reference to The Bell Curve (also referenced in this post at footnote 26) in a reference I made to a Rushton study on footnote 21. Vox Day looked into the matter and found (1) sampling problems admitted in the study, (2) an admission in the study itself not to generalize the figure to the Ashkenazi population [*43], and (3) referenced that if the Ashkenazi average was in the 113-15 range, the average non-Ashkenazi ethnic Jew in Israel would have an IQ in the 83.5 range [*44], which would be a dubious assumption. Accordingly, I've removed the Ashkenazi IQ reference.
Regardless of any of the above, HBD will eventually be accepted public knowledge, just like evolution is today. And the more the left gaslights the public on its reality and punishes its heretics with the NAXALT Inquisition, the more the upcoming Generation Z may accept some logistically uglier proposals stemming from HBD, like ethno-nationalism and/or eugenics, as the left's credibility on the topic completely erodes and there are no legitimate political forces to put a break on anyone who'd get carried away with any conclusions to address HBD. After all, who would trust the political right today if we still denied humanity's highly probable evolution? The sooner the left acknowledges HBD and works with the right to modify its position, like Christians did with evolution, the sooner we can end the maddening demands of Adverse Impact and focus the political debate on areas more productive to human flourishing.
UPDATE: A prior version of this post included a reference to the Ashkenazi Jewish IQ, 113-115 range. The source was a reference to The Bell Curve (also referenced in this post at footnote 26) in a reference I made to a Rushton study on footnote 21. Vox Day looked into the matter and found (1) sampling problems admitted in the study, (2) an admission in the study itself not to generalize the figure to the Ashkenazi population [*43], and (3) referenced that if the Ashkenazi average was in the 113-15 range, the average non-Ashkenazi ethnic Jew in Israel would have an IQ in the 83.5 range [*44], which would be a dubious assumption. Accordingly, I've removed the Ashkenazi IQ reference.
----
[*1] http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775
[*2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVD4TjxnJ0M&t=1133s
[*3] http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/documents/Scopes%201926.pdf
[*4] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-steinhorn/how-the-gop-became-the-an_b_970410.html
[*5] http://www.counterbalance.org/history/scopes-frame.html / and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVD4TjxnJ0M&t=1133s
[*6] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/tennessee-evolution-scopes-education_n_1368636.html
[*7] http://www.counterbalance.org/history/scopes-frame.html
[*8] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/tennessee-evolution-scopes-education_n_1368636.html
[*9] https://thinkprogress.org/texans-call-on-school-board-to-remove-climate-denial-from-textbooks-119c45355360/
[*10] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/tennessee-evolution-scopes-education_n_1368636.html
[*11] i.e. http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/doesevolutiondisprovegod.html
[*12] https://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-politics.htm
[*13] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html
[*14] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
[*15] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/?utm_term=.d55ff13ec82d
[*16] http://ironbarkresources.com/defendingfreespeech/dfs05racescience.htm
[*17] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal
[*18] http://philipperushton.net/?page_id=7
[*19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY
[*20] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article199440204.html
[*21] https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
[*22] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.436.9568&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[*23] https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/
[*24] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/
[*25] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11922707/Nobel-Prize-winners-How-many-women-have-won-awards.html
[*26] https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
[*27] http://www.aei.org/publication/bell-curve-20-years-later-qa-charles-murray/
[*28] https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
[*29] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/
[*30] https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/12/15/u-s-black-white-iq-gap-no-more-than-50-genetic/comment-page-1/
[*31] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TNtbailjWI
[*32] http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf
[*33] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=28s
[*34] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/study_liberaltoconservative_faculty_ratio_in_academia_will_blow_your_mind.html
[*35] https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/Students-Free-Speech-Rights-in-Public-Schools-2004.pdf
[*36] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
[*37] www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html
[*38] http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
[*39] http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
[*40] https://nationalpolicy.institute/
[*41] https://www.amren.com/
[*42] https://infogalactic.com/info/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
[*43] http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-myth-of-jewish-intelligence.html
[*44] http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/iq-exaggeration-and-overrepresentation.html
[*2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVD4TjxnJ0M&t=1133s
[*3] http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/documents/Scopes%201926.pdf
[*4] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-steinhorn/how-the-gop-became-the-an_b_970410.html
[*5] http://www.counterbalance.org/history/scopes-frame.html / and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVD4TjxnJ0M&t=1133s
[*6] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/tennessee-evolution-scopes-education_n_1368636.html
[*7] http://www.counterbalance.org/history/scopes-frame.html
[*8] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/tennessee-evolution-scopes-education_n_1368636.html
[*9] https://thinkprogress.org/texans-call-on-school-board-to-remove-climate-denial-from-textbooks-119c45355360/
[*10] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/tennessee-evolution-scopes-education_n_1368636.html
[*11] i.e. http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/doesevolutiondisprovegod.html
[*12] https://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-politics.htm
[*13] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html
[*14] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
[*15] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/?utm_term=.d55ff13ec82d
[*16] http://ironbarkresources.com/defendingfreespeech/dfs05racescience.htm
[*17] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal
[*18] http://philipperushton.net/?page_id=7
[*19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY
[*20] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article199440204.html
[*21] https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
[*22] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.436.9568&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[*23] https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/
[*24] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/
[*25] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11922707/Nobel-Prize-winners-How-many-women-have-won-awards.html
[*26] https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
[*27] http://www.aei.org/publication/bell-curve-20-years-later-qa-charles-murray/
[*28] https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
[*29] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/
[*30] https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/12/15/u-s-black-white-iq-gap-no-more-than-50-genetic/comment-page-1/
[*31] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TNtbailjWI
[*32] http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf
[*33] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=28s
[*34] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/study_liberaltoconservative_faculty_ratio_in_academia_will_blow_your_mind.html
[*35] https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/Students-Free-Speech-Rights-in-Public-Schools-2004.pdf
[*36] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
[*37] www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html
[*38] http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
[*39] http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
[*40] https://nationalpolicy.institute/
[*41] https://www.amren.com/
[*42] https://infogalactic.com/info/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
[*43] http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-myth-of-jewish-intelligence.html
[*44] http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/iq-exaggeration-and-overrepresentation.html
NAXALT is the pure statistical idiocy of mistaking the individual for the population. It's a category error that manipulates the stupid with virtue signaling.
ReplyDeleteAn "honest conversation about race," as the Left commonly demand, includes statistical disparities and possible reasons for them that include uncomfortable truths existing in mountains of statistical data measuring relative performance on non-timed, non-linguistic tests (i.e. Raven's Progressive Matrices) for cognitive horsepower (IQ).
DeletePeople who choose to believe, like many conservatives do, that all human beings are equal blank slates from birth, that nurture dictates human behavior while the genetic lottery of birth equally endows all races in cognitive ability from an aggregate view (i.e. the apriori notion that races have the same mean IQ) , have no reply to the Left's induction from that apriori notion that the differences must be due to organized prejudice by white people. Why else would there be such great disparities in wealth? Under such an assumption and its natural inferences, using government power to dole out positions and money to ethnic minorities to rebalance society to that false mean of cognitive ability between races (that exists only in their minds) would appear a reasonable measure.