Nik, thank you for the taking the time to write that lengthy reply. I understand very well that my views seem outrageous and extreme to most people. I'm attacking what are, in many ways, the bedrock assumptions that multiple generations in the west have now grown up with, so it's quite natural that people should want to lash out and resort to whatever language (on the internet, other means in 'real life') necessary to shut down voices like mine. However, rational people, if they are to be considered rational people, should want to see their assumptions challenged, and if they are found wanting, should want to ammend them. It's in that spirit and that spirit alone that I ask you to consider the position I advance, and in particular the facts I summon in support of it.
I find it interesting that you felt the need to include the phrase 'point blank' in the first sentence above. Please understand that I am not trying to be a smart-ass; I am genuinely interested in this qualification. If not point-blank, did you suggest it indirectly? Are you saying that you feel that in some cases blacks should be sterilized? How about career criminals? Or what about crack whores? I believe that you do in fact think that sterilization of people like this would be a morally acceptable way of improving the condition of society as a whole. I assume that you also believe that white crack whores should be sterilized. Is that the case?
I said "point-blank" to forestall any example up you might have had up your sleeve where I had "suggested" it or implied it indirectly. (I mean, come on, you have in the past seriously distorted my words, so it shouldn't surprise you I would be wary.) The fact is I have never suggested it any way, and if you re-read the paragraph you quoted, you'd see that I said I thought
everyone should have the opportunity to procreate (except the obvious cases of mental illness, mental retardation etc--the kind of people who don't readily find willing partners anyway, so it's a bit beside the point).
Regarding the last sentence in the above paragraph,
if society was going to sterilize crack-whores, then yes, crack-whores of
all races should be sterilized, certainly.
Since I am not actually advocating sterilization, per se, that largely makes your subsequent paragraph superfluous. Nevertheless, I would point out that
if society wished to introduce to a sterilization program, there is no reason at all it couldn't be done democratically and objectively.
If you were in power, your feelings about immigration into âwhiteâ countries would affect the decisions you made.
Just as the feelings of those in power today affect the decisions
they make. It's interesting, though, isn't it, that, for a democratic society,
my benighted and despicable views on immigration would actually be much more in accord with the views of the majority of the population than today's enlightened bureaucrats. Since a country's immigration policies will have an irreversible effect on the character of that country, and a greater long-term impact on the people of that country's lives than the great majority of policy decisions, why
not have a referendum on immigration? Can any country that doesn't have such referendum, at least on being made aware of the pressing need for one, really call itself democratic?
Those decisions would not be based on the ideal of an assumed equality and liberty for all, because as you have stated, you do not believe that all people are created equal.
You're right. My views would be based on reality, not simply ideals. I don't see why you invoke liberty, however. There is nothing in the view that people are inherently unequal that would compel one to deny liberty to another; said differently, liberty does not require the assumption of equality.
Now⦠let us take a moment and examine your past statements about the relative value of the different races. You have stated repeatedly that black people are at the bottom of the food chain, in your view of relative worth of the races. You have said that they are the least intelligent. As I tried to point out to you early on, there is a fundamental flaw in generalizing from Stanford-Binet averages to the individual. The problem is this.
I think you're putting words into my mouth again. Whatever I might have said about hierarchies, it was in direct response to a question or statement you put to me. I'm really not interested in developing intricate hierarchies that account precisely for different groups'abilities or 'worth'.
What I
have said is that IQ is predictive of life results. Highly predictive. So predictive that a five year old child's IQ score can predict with impressive accuracy the grades such a child will achieve, the kind of careers that will open to it and even the likelihood of that child engaging in criminal activity. No, as you point out, none of this determines what any one such child will accomplish in life, however, what any one particular child does is hardly going to be of great interest to society. It's what
large numbers of children (and adolescents and adults) do that will impact society. And IQ is highly predictive of the life results that people of various IQ levels will do. In a word, it is
important.
Now, it just so happens that groups of different races, don't all have the same IQ distributions. Therefore, there is going to be a disparity in what members of different racial groups are going to achieve in life. The larger the disparity in IQ (and other inherited mental and behavioral traits), the larger the disparity in life results. Therefore, since the mean African-American IQ level is ~85, compared to a mean white American score of 100, life results achieved by members of these two groups are going to differ. They are especially going to differ at the tails. Given the 'bell' distribution of IQs, only some 15% of African-Americans have IQs above 100, whereas 50% of whites do. I don't have the figures of the top of my head, but I think it's something like 35% of whites being above 110-115, the minimum level typically required for a university education, while only something like 5% of African-Americans have IQs that high. Therefore, by merit alone, you would hardly expect to see any blacks at the highest positions in society. Similarly, at the other end, 50% of blacks have IQs lower than 85, while only some 30% of whites do. Some 30% of blacks have IQs lower than 75, while only some 5% of whites do. Therefore, you would expect to see blacks overrepresented in the kind of delinquency typically associated with such low IQs--which is precisely what you observe.
The liberal response to this is to: (a) claim IQ tests are culturally biased (bi) claim they don't really measure intelligence (bii) claim that intelligence doesn't really exist, or is impossible to define, therefore cannot be measured and, above all, (c) claim IQ differences are the result of environmental not genetic differences.
Unfortunately, the existing evidence rules out all of these possibilites. (a) Asians outscore whites on the very tests that are supposed to be culturally biased towards whites (bi) whatever they
do measure is predictive of life results (bii) high IQ scores correlate well with the popular understanding of "bright" or "talented" and low scores correlate well with popular understanding of "stupid" or "dumb" (c) requires the most evidence, but some of the most compelling is: studies of identical twins raised in separate households showed that the twins had virtually identical IQs despite being raised in different environments; siblings growing up in the same household can have greatly differing IQs; at a group level, black children adopted into white families still have IQs closer to (or right at) the black mean, not the white.
(Believe me, I really don't like harping on about this, and I understand very well that what I say readily gives itself to hurting people, and yes, 'certain groups' readily employ it for precisely that purpose, but again, it's because it's so important that it cannot be ignored that I must say it.)
