Skip to content
March 18, 2016 / JayMan

The Donald Trump Phenomenon: Part 2: Binary Thinking

(This is also published at The Unz Review.)

In the preceding part (The Donald Trump Phenomenon: Part 1: The American Nations), I talked about the geographic (and hence ethnic) variation in support for the various 2016 U.S. presidential candidates. In this part, I will focus on the turmoil in this particular election cycle, and what it means for our society and acceptance of the reality of HBD.

This election cycle exhibits a certain ferocity not seen in earlier elections. Much of that is hatred directed at Donald Trump. The rancor will likely intensify as the election progresses, especially if Trump is the Republican nominee, as he is likely to be.

Why this vitriol? Donald Trump was always a talked-about and sometimes controversial figure, but no more so than most celebrities. There were always people who didn’t like him, but few really hated him. But now it seems certain people definitely do hate Trump. Indeed, he has now become the Great Satan in many people’s eyes, and comparisons to Adolf Hitler are common. Why?

Much as been written about Trump’s appeal to his supporters. See:

Donald Trump is not an idiot – he could be the next US President
Note from a Trump Supporter: It’s the Immigration, Stupid! | educationrealist
I was wrong about Donald Trump: Camille Paglia on the GOP front-runner’s refreshing candor (and his impetuousness, too)

But why the hate? I will argue that the hatred directed towards Trump has little to do with Trump himself or his campaign. Rather, I suspect that this is more about what a Trump presidency represents: the end of our politically correct society.

Why do people like me have to write anonymous blogs and columns on the internet when talking about the obvious reality of human biological differences (especially biological group differences)? Why do researchers face the risk of falling into The Bermuda Triangle of Science, as behavioral geneticist Brian Boutwell recently put it?

The academy, in general, is a wonderful place to work, but not everyone plays nice. Veer too far from carefully charted courses and someone may slip quietly up behind you and slide a cold piece of steel in between the ribs of your budding research career.

They’ll do this believing that they are serving public interest by snuffing out dangerous research agendas, but that won’t make any difference to you. It’ll be your reputation that will suffer grievous injury. What in the world might elicit such harsh rebuke from a community of otherwise broadminded, free speech spouting scholars? What is so verboten that it constitutes academia’s Bermuda Triangle, a place where careers disappear more often than ships in the actual Bermuda Triangle? In one word, it’s race.

[R]ace represents academia’s true Bermuda Triangle. Perhaps never has the topic of genetic ancestry been so important, yet despite its relevance, bright scholars continue to stay away from it in droves … It will not matter how noble you think your motives are, if you factor in race as a variable, your actions are subject to impeachment, and your reputation may be sacrificed as a burnt offering to our new religion.

Linda Gottfredson is a brilliant, productive, and innovative scholar. Dr. Gottfredson, however, found herself in the Bermuda Triangle some years back

crossing the boundaries of the Triangle (even if only to defend a colleague) can be frightening. Angry invectives hurled in your direction will come so fast, and so fierce, it will likely leave your head spinning, as Gottfredson illustrates (p.276):

News coverage was often lurid. The UD African-American Coalition argued that my work was not just offensive, but dangerous. My ‘‘so-called research” and the social policies I ‘‘was likely to propose” were ‘‘liable to threaten the very survival of African-Americans” (Tarver, 1990, p. 6A).

Within the Bermuda Triangle, you see, it is a free for all when it comes to accusations and motive indictment. There is no suitable defense, trying to mount in fact one will only fan the flames.

Such facts are effectively embargoed in our society, and anyone who breaks this taboo can face serious social consequences.

As John McWhorter put it in his piece Antiracism, Our Flawed New Religion:

One hearkens to one’s preacher to keep telling the truth—and also to make sure we hear it often, since many of its tenets are easy to drift away from, which leads us to the next evidence that Antiracism is now a religion. It is inherent to a religion that one is to accept certain suspensions of disbelief. Certain questions are not to be asked, or if asked, only politely—and the answer one gets, despite being somewhat half-cocked, is to be accepted as doing the job.

“Why is the Bible so self-contradictory?” Well, God works in mysterious ways—what’s key is that you believe. “Why does God allows such terrible things to happen?” Well, because we have free will … and it’s complicated but really, just have faith.

It stops there: beyond this first round, one is to classify the issues as uniquely “complicated.” They are “deep,” one says, looking off into the air for a sec in a reflective mode, implying that thinking about this stuff just always leads to more questions, in an infinitely questing Talmudic exploration one cannot expect to yield an actual conclusion.

Antiracism requires much of the same standpoint. For example, one is not to ask “Why are black people so upset about one white cop killing a black man when black men are at much more danger of being killed by one another?” Or, one might ask this, very politely—upon which the answers are flabby but further questions are unwelcome. A common answer is that black communities do protest black-on-black violence —but anyone knows that the outrage against white cops is much, much vaster.

Why? Is the answer “deep,” perhaps? Charles Blow, at least deigning to take the issue by the horns, answers that the black men are killing one another within a racist “structure.” That doesn’t explain why black activists consider the white cop a more appalling threat to a black man than various black men in his own neighborhood. But to push the point means you just don’t “get” it (you haven’t opened your heart to Jesus, perhaps?)

The Antiracism religion, then, has clergy, creed, and also even a conception of Original Sin. Note the current idea that the enlightened white person is to, I assume regularly (ritually?), “acknowledge” that they possess White Privilege.

The call for people to soberly “acknowledge” their White Privilege as a self-standing, totemic act is based on the same justification as acknowledging one’s fundamental sinfulness is as a Christian. One is born marked by original sin; to be white is to be born with the stain of unearned privilege.

Antiracism parallels religion also in a proselytizing impulse. Key to being an Antiracist is a sense that there is always a flock of unconverted heathen “out there,” as it is often put about the whites who were so widely feared as possibly keeping Barack Obama from being elected (twice). One is blessed with, as it were, the Good News in being someone who “gets it,” complete with the Acknowledging.

Finally, Antiracism is all about a Judgment Day, in a sense equally mesmerizing and mythical. Antiracist scripture includes a ritual reference to, as it were, the Great Day when America “owns up to” or “comes to terms with” structural racism—note that “acknowledge” is a term just as appropriate—and finally, well, fixes it somehow.

Yet Antiracism as religion has its downsides. It encourages an idea that racism in its various guises must be behind anything bad for black people, which is massively oversimplified in 2015.

The fact is that Antiracism, as a religion, pollutes our race dialogue as much as any lack of understanding by white people of their Privilege. For example, the good Antiracist supports black claims that standardized tests are “racist” in that black people don’t do as well on them as other students. But Antiracism also encourages us to ask why, oh why black people are suspected of being less intelligent than others—despite this take on the tests, and aspiring firefighters and even teachers making news with similar claims that tough tests are “racist.” Now, to say that if black people can’t be expected to take tests then they must not be as smart is, under Antiracism, blasphemous—one is not to ask too many questions.

Here’s a video of McWhorter discussing this for those who prefer:

Of course, I’ll go a step further than McWhorter and say NW European-derived society isn’t today just antiracist; it’s anti-sexist/anti-misogynist, anti-homophboic, and anti-transphobic as well. In the blanket terms, today’s Western society is politically correct. Sinners against these doctrines face serious consequences, as James Watson, Larry Summers, Satoshi Kanazawa, Jason Richwine, and many others exemplify.

As I said, the fundamental thread is to deny biological group differences, particularly those that are inherited (the key exceptions being the doctrine that homosexuality is 100% genetic and inborn, despite the fact that it is neither of those things – and the Althouse rule for sex differences). There is a wall against biology in Northwestern European societies (that is also fervently embraced by many Ashkenazi Jews).

Hence, we see the hatred and derision directed towards Donald Trump. In the modern Western religion of antiracism/political correctness, Trump and his potential ascent to the White House represents the possible end of our politically correct society. Indeed, Trump isn’t just a divisive presidential candidate; to adherents of antiracism/political correctness, Trump is the Antichrist. 

To merely speak openly about the possibility of any inherited biological group difference, no matter how limited, or small, can lead to discussion of other, possibly larger differences. This opens the door to a Pandora’s box of inherited biological group differences. Perhaps it will turn out that there are “winner” and “loser” groups in today’s modern world. Perhaps the reason the world looks like it does today…


… is because of those differences.

Worse still, this would mean admitting failure in the great hope – the hope that one day humanity can be perfected and poverty, war, prejudice, etc. can be eliminated. Acknowledging inherited biological group differences – that is, human biodiversity, means that the idyllic world of the Star Trek franchise will never come to pass no matter how much social “progress” occurs.

Even among those who aren’t necessarily so Pollyanna about the reality of human group differences, many still wish to suppress knowledge of their existence for another reason: because they believe it is what is holding our multiracial society together. I have mentioned something similar before (see hbd fallout | hbd chick):

“Back when groups differences weren’t so taboo in Western society, and one could talk about them openly, society was *also* more racist (this was pre-Civil Rights here in America). It is possible that in order for society to be aware of the reality of HBD, it must be actually be *racist*.

“Think of all the simmering resentment in Whites that are the victims of these crimes (as a Black man, I wouldn’t talk to this soldier’s family about now). And on top of that, imagine all the Whites that are not necessarily so politically correct about race. How would they react? (Here’s an example: Far-right extremists in eastern Germany quietly building a town for neo-Nazis.)

Can you have a multiracial society in one that is honest about group differences? … Will people *really* run with the understanding that differences *on average* don’t apply to every last individual, or will group solidarity rule the day? How will intelligent and completely inoffensive Blacks, for example, be treated by Whites then? The example of Chechens challenges the notion of treating people as individuals, because arguably they are so tribal and violent on average that even a modest number of them can cause problems (there are only 200 in America). But if they pose a problem in that way, what about other groups?

I still don’t know the answer to these questions. I fully admit that a society that openly acknowledges group differences may in fact also be a racist one. The reason I think this is not so much because of the way I think most people will behave. I think most Westerners can take this knowledge in stride. However, there are elements that won’t. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists. There is no social policy or prescription that necessarily follows from knowledge of inherited group differences. But it is the very nature of people determines how they will react. Some groups want to deride/persecute/destroy other groups they feel are tainted or inferior. Nazism didn’t come out of a vacuum, and it too is a result of the nature of the people who embraced it. (Indeed persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany was most intense in areas that had a long history of killing Jews – see Persecution Perpetuated: The Medieval Origins of Anti-Semitic Violence in Nazi Germany, Voigtländer & Voth 2010.) The key thing here is that it was not facts about racial differences themselves that led to the behavior of the Nazis or Cavalier-descended White American Southerners. It was their own traits, particularly their attitudes towards other groups. In fact, if you spend enough time reading the stuff put out by White Nationalists (as I unfortunately can’t avoid all that much in my line of work) you will find that many of their beliefs about race and biology are factually inaccurate, and their beliefs are twisted from the reality to suit their agendas (see The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz and “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist (Neither Does Group Selection)). The reality however is that these people don’t need much justification to pursue their aims – they want to act against other groups anyway. It is their nature.

Quite likely racists, neo-Nazis and the like will be more vocal in the event of a Trump victory (or even a Trump defeat). There is nothing saying that they will rule the day, however. That is not a given, and I suspect, broadly, that it’s not likely. Nonetheless,  the Antiracist/P.C. crowd view acknowledging inherited biological differences as opening a floodgate that could usher in practices such as coercive eugenics (i.e., forced sterilizations – see also Razib Khan: Eugenics: the problem is coercion) or Jim Crow policies, or worse. That is a big part of why reasonable policies such as limiting immigration or restricting entry from certain groups (like Muslims) are off the table. To the Antiracist crowd, the matter of group differences is binary: we either are acknowledging them at all or we’re not.

Restricting certain groups (or any immigration) moves us from being a universalist society – where all people (and peoples) are treated equally, to a particularist one, where people are treated differently according to their inherent qualities. That’s a line they don’t want us to cross, for the aforementioned reasons.

Yet I will argue that this rebuke of biology, despite whatever semi-rational basis it might have, is in reality just another group attribute. Just like the Nazis embraced biology and extreme particularism, certain NW Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews have an inherent discomfort with biology – supremely ironically, because of their biology. 

Easy examples of this:

These individuals regard biological bases to behavior as being wrong, or if not wrong, then dangerous or evil and they hate and/or fear them. But they are perfectly happy with “environmental” sources to human differences, and changes brought about with such.

But this fear reveals a deep logical inconsistency. While it’s true that belief in a biological basis to human differences has been involved in many societal evils, such as Jim Crow, forced sterilizations, and Nazism, the belief that there are is no biological basis to human behavior – the belief that we are blank slates – has led to great many more atrocities. While the off chance that an HBD-aware society might lead to discrimination and Nazism may exist, runaway blank slatism isn’t much better. You don’t hear much discussion of this guy:

Runaway blank slatism has arguably killed many times more people that the Nazis ever did.

But those who rail against biology barely acknowledge this. Part of the reason is that many in the Western Left are sympathetic to communism and its ideals. Some even believe that communism can still work if “properly implemented”.

Even the softer authoritarianism sweeping the West (e.g, in Sweden, Germany, and Britain) is too uncomfortable for my taste. It’s never good when society goes too far towards either extreme.

At the end to the day however, there is a reality regardless of what elites want us to think. Suppressing science only works so well because truths about the world will keep getting rediscovered. Modern technology is pushing ahead, and the facts continue to pour in. There is however a backlash in the West. The ascent of Donald Trump is the American manifestation of this, as is the rise of many nationalist candidates and parties in NW European countries. This could potentially be a good thing, because one of the most pressing problems facing Northwestern European-derived societies is unrelenting migration into them.

Trump is the only candidate who is taking a position against continued mass immigration, which must be halted soon for the good of both Western societies and ultimately the migrants themselves.

(All that said, let me make clear that I think that Trump is a less-than-ideal candidate for president for several reasons. For one, he appears to support the increasing encroachment of government into our civil liberties and the burgeoning Security State. He appears to be weak on established science – a fantastic irony – exemplified by his amenity to anti-vaxxers – an almost unforgivable sin in a leader. He also doesn’t seem to have clear and realistic economic plans and instead copies the mainstream conservative doctrine on things like taxation and healthcare. Now, those considered, Trump doesn’t appear to be much of a deeply principled politician – in stark contrast to Bernie Sanders – and is probably not all that attached to many of these positions. This leaves hope that his views on these matters might be changed. Might.)

Interesting and important times lie ahead. Let’s hope it turns out well.

On the matter of hope, as you know, I recently had another child, a beautiful daughter to give JayMan Jr. a playmate.

Little Miss AlertJayMan Jr Shave KidsLittle Miss Sleeping

And, as many of you know, children are expensive. I request your generous support. You can donate via PayPal (accepting Visa and Mastercard) via the button below or to the right:


I am also accepting Bitcoins for those who prefer to use this route. My Bitcoin address is: 1DjjhBGxoRVfdjYo2QgSteMYLuXNVg3DiJ

I greatly appreciate your donations!




Leave a Comment
  1. rzg / Mar 18 2016 7:07 PM

    Jayman has always been careful to avoid posting pictures of himself. But we can begin to amalgate facial averages of his children, and conclude that he’s adorable-looking.

    Do I take it that even a black-pajama commie such as yourself is voting Trump?

    • Malcolm Kirkpatrick / Mar 26 2016 5:29 PM

      From a lifetime of observation in Hawaii I will generalize: the more you mix it up, the better it comes out.
      I might have yielded to the temptation to contribute to the jaylady cause but Jayman argues that the non-genetic parental contribution to career success is effectively zero, so what’s the difference between clean and soiled nappies, anyway?.
      How could maternal instincts evolve if parental care contributes nothing? There’s something funny about the “no significant non-genetic parental contribution” argument.

    • JayMan / Mar 26 2016 5:32 PM

      How could maternal instincts evolve if parental care contributes nothing? There’s something funny about the “no significant non-genetic parental contribution” argument.

      Did you know that in pre-modern times, half of all children never lived to adulthood (even in the West)? That seems to be a huge reason for parental instincts.

    • Malcolm Kirkpatrick / Mar 26 2016 6:11 PM

      Certainly, but what difference could it make? How does any complex behavior evolve if it doesn’t contribute to fitness? Nurturing instincts contribute to fitness. We must conclude that –nurturing– contributes to fitness.

    • JayMan / Mar 26 2016 6:19 PM

      So keeping your kids alive doesn’t contribute to fitness? I would say it sure the hell does.

    • RaceRealist / Apr 5 2016 10:46 AM

      JayMan is a commie?

  2. gilbertodorneles / Mar 19 2016 3:30 PM

    Regarding economic plans, Isn’t Trump subconscious plan of maintaining the IQ of the population the best one among all candidates?

  3. Daniel / Mar 19 2016 5:42 PM

    So white nationalists are wrong because… ethnic genetic interests dont exist and they should probably exclude certain white people too?

    Okay, those are hardly slam dunks. Even if there are no biological basis for these interests there is a political one.

    And the reality of NW Euro primacy is not lost on them either. Or most of them anyway.

    You’re worried they’d come after you and your family. I get it. The proles should be kept in check and not be so eager to throw out Raheem Kassan of Breitbart for instance. Particularly when the people like Raheem arent a reproductive threat. They have fewer kids.

  4. JV / Mar 22 2016 8:05 PM

    “Why this vitriol? Donald Trump was always a talked-about and sometimes controversial figure, but no more so than most celebrities. There were always people who didn’t like him, but few really hated him. But now it seems certain people definitely do hate Trump. Indeed, he has now become the Great Satan in many people’s eyes, and comparisons to Adolf Hitler are common. Why?”

    For me, it’s because as a reality TV star and public personality, he’s entertaining and relatively harmless. As a potential leader of the free world, those same traits that make him entertaining in the private sector make him worrisome, to say the least. That’s pretty much the extant of me feelings towards Trump the candidate, and those of lots of people I’ve talked to. I don’t want someone like him representing our country, not because of his political views per se, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t, but because of the way he presents himself.

    • RaceRealist / Apr 5 2016 10:53 AM

      As a potential leader of the free world, those same traits that make him entertaining in the private sector make him worrisome, to say the least.

      This. People say “oh he’s not a politician he’s different!” Please. He’s still backed by the same Jewish interests and he even groveled at AIPAC, just like the rest. He isn’t even a good speaker. He just says what people are thinking regarding immigration and the like.

      Him saying Obama has been bad for our relationship with Israel is the most worrisome to me. We don’t need to be in the middle east and stick our noses in their problems anymore.

  5. Tom / Mar 29 2016 11:52 AM

    Beautiful kids. Congrats.

  6. freereel / Apr 1 2016 9:23 AM

    Jayman, you are a genius! Thanks to you, my understanding is deeper. You are the one who turned me on to the idea of different psychologies in different parts of the country. I know you didn’t invent the whole idea, but you are the one who summarized and linked to that map and I only learned about it while devouring your American Nations series.

    I’ve been watching Trump flail a little bit in Wisconsin. Without your insights, I would have thought of this more on the dimension of time–Trump had momentum and now he’s losing it because things are changing. But your insights helped me to realize that Wisconsin was never going to be incredibly fertile ground for Trump. That psychology of the upper midwest–extroverted but traditional. They don’t like showy Northeasterners who don’t play by the rules!

    This has also helped me as I think about where to live. I’m at a crossroads where I’ve just returned to the U.S. from an expat stint in Europe. The midwest seemed appealing because it’s cheaper and people are friendly. But I am a hardcore contrarian and iconoclastic guy who loves arguing. Which, I have now learned, might go over like a lead balloon in the midwest. So I guess it’s the expensive coasts for me!

  7. James / Apr 11 2016 4:35 AM

    I heard about Jayman for the first time last week on Radio Derb. My first impression of this blog is that, for those interested in the issues examined here, you get erudite commentaries which require a diligent effort to read and understand.

    • JayMan / Apr 11 2016 6:17 PM

      Thank you!

  8. something / Apr 22 2016 4:50 PM
  9. asdf / May 2 2016 2:43 AM

    A very good post.

    Ultimately, HBD denial is having real world negative impacts on non-elite whites. While recent PC nuttiness has had a last straw on the camel’s back effect, in truth its been a couple of decades coming. The tech and housing bubbles papered over underlying secular trends that have left many whites behind. People aren’t just mad about events in “current year”, they are mad about the accumulated changes over decades.

    Polls show that 66% of Republican voters think life was better for people like the *fifty years ago*. 75% for Trump supporters. 54% for whites overall. For white people, they basically feel that its been all downhill since the 60s. Talk about Make America Great Again.

    If I can sum up the narrative went something like this:

    “We are all progressing towards the right side of history. Application of a few basic universalist principles will make life better for the vast majority of people in this country. Only ignorance or blind hate are reasons people deny this obvious progress. If your just patient everything will be better.”

    As you noted, we were basically told if we were all good liberals some kind of Star Trek future was ahead for us. I certainly believed that when I was younger, and it was what I was taught. Outside of disliking affirmative action (which I dealt with specifically at my charter high school), I would have been appalled by racism.

    For most whites though, that future never came. There were a few brief bubble years here and there where you could claim it was going to come true, but its all gone, and we all know we are bubbled out.

    I disagree that racism is inherent, my own father marched for civil rights in the 1960s. He was really passionate about that stuff. It was only decades later that he became disillusioned. He delivered to stores in the ghetto and watched people cashing welfare checks to buy lotto tickets long enough to get fed up. He watched the rise of crime, AA, disparate impact, and PC. It was only after Civil Rights failed to improve black people (if anything, it seemed to make them worse from what he saw) that he started questioning. He still doesn’t know HBD or have the attitude I have, but boy is he fed up and knows his ideals just didn’t work out.

    Even myself, I used to have a more academic view of HBD. I was against immigration, but I thought if we could just get that under control the rest could be managed.

    It was only after blacks burned down my city, gays persecuted anyone who wouldn’t be their slave and make their cake on demand, and the Summer of PC made it clear that co-existance is not possible. Either we have the power, or they have the power. I’ve had too many personal stories of people I love being impacted by diversity to forgive.

    That pattern seems to hold with Trump too. If a district has more black people, it has more Trump supporters, even after adjusting for income. People WANT to believe in the genetic blank slate, just like they want to believe Jesus rose from the dead, but when the price of delusion is too high people give up on the delusions. You can’t actually interact with black people in ways that matter to your well being without embracing the truth. Only people out in all white square states or elite enclaves can afford ignorance.

    As my Dad put it, the dream wasn’t for Civil Rights in and of themselves. That’s how it was phrased, it was the short hand, he certainly believed it in a way. However, the main reason it was done was based on the assumption that once in possession of those rights, blacks would eventually assimilate into white norms. When you get down to brass tax it was consequentialist, not deontological.

    Trump is the ultimate consequentialist candidate. He has no ideology, no principles, no anything. His entire world view is summed up in “The Art of the Deal.” He’s a pragmatist. After all of the high ideals have proven to be a disaster based on results, people have given up on ideals.

    The status quo can’t hold. It’s literally being measured in the deaths of white people (the correlation between white deaths and Trump% is high). People are making one last gasp to built a world for their children before demographic apocalypse destroys us all.

  10. Dale / Jul 28 2016 11:01 PM

    But what if we follow Trivers’ idea that the subconscious is where we bury things that we mustn’t admit in public? There’s no reason that we can’t act on HBD while denying it with our mouths.

    As for saving the world, NW Europe became WEIRDO through some process, and I don’t see any reason that that process can’t be applied to the rest of the world. Indeed, we may already be applying it to the rest of the world without knowing it. Industrializing a country, that is, making it richer, may be the ultimate colonial intervention.

    Then again, it’s almost certain that a substantial determinant of whether one “believes in” HBD or not is one’s genes…

    • JayMan / Jul 28 2016 11:05 PM

      As for saving the world, NW Europe became WEIRDO through some process

      Centuries of evolution

      I don’t see any reason that that process can’t be applied to the rest of the world.

      I doubt most places are experiencing the proper selective pressures. And who has centuries to wait?

      Then again, it’s almost certain that a substantial determinant of whether one “believes in” HBD or not is one’s genes


  11. Anonymous / Sep 7 2016 6:20 PM


    Any reason you’ve stopped blogging? Have missed hearing your thoughts!

  12. rw95 / Dec 15 2016 10:30 AM

    “I fully admit that a society that openly acknowledges group differences may in fact also be a racist one. The reason I think this is not so much because of the way I think most people will behave. I think most Westerners can take this knowledge in stride.”

    You’re wrong Jayman. Dead wrong.

    Look up the comments on any Stefan Molyneaux video discussing race, or any Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire or Fred Reed article. Most westerners will not take group differences in stride. They’ll be led to the conclusion that blacks (who are the main source of hate) are an inferior people, and have no place in a civilized society. The only reason your marriage is allowed is because we believe in this sameness between human groups. If that is destroyed, hate WILL rule the day.

    • JayMan / Dec 15 2016 10:50 AM

      You’re basing that on comments from alt-righters?

    • rw95 / Dec 15 2016 5:41 PM

      Is anything I’ve said wrong in any way?
      Most people are morons. HBD is better off kept out of the public sphere. I still believe that as I have seen no evidence to the contrary that the majority of people can comprehend the reality of human group differences without leading to hate.

    • JayMan / Dec 15 2016 5:42 PM

      Basing the behavior of most people off comments from the scumbags you get to most HBDesque blogs isn’t the best route.

    • rw95 / Dec 15 2016 5:54 PM

      Do you have any counterexamples? The only ones I’ve seen are the blogs of you, HBD chick, and Razib Khan.

    • JayMan / Dec 15 2016 5:57 PM

      People who comment at HBD blogs are by no means representative of the general population.

    • rw95 / Dec 15 2016 6:07 PM

      If that’s the kind of response we get from people who freely look into HBD, how do you think the rest of the population will take it? It’s not an encouraging sign of things to come.
      If HBD shows that blacks are on average a standard deviation less intelligent than whites, commit crime disproportionate to their share of the population, and take out of the system more than the pay into it, what reason is there to keep them here?
      Hate to say it, but there doesn’t really seem to be a good argument against this.

    • JayMan / Dec 15 2016 6:21 PM

      If that’s the kind of response we get from people who freely look into HBD, how do you think the rest of the population will take it?

      Those people are also overwhelmingly more racist than the general population. The types of people are often White Nationalist and people aligned to such. They come to these sites in part to express and justify their racism.

      If HBD shows that blacks are on average a standard deviation less intelligent than whites, commit crime disproportionate to their share of the population, and take out of the system more than the pay into it, what reason is there to keep them here?

      And send them where, for one?

      Lots of people take more from the system than they pay in: low IQ Whites; old people; disabled people; the mentally ill. Are we kicking them out too?

    • rw95 / Dec 15 2016 6:32 PM

      Even if we completely ignore the differences between Europeans (and we both know that there are in fact huge differences between Euro populations), HBD, as I’ve said many times before, shows that the racists and segregationists were, if not totally justified, certainly were not completely wrong in the ways they viewed blacks.

      As for where to send blacks, Lincoln wanted to send them all back to Africa, after all. If culture comes from genes, surely there should be no problem in sending them back to the homeland, no?
      (Again, Jayman, I’m not saying I agree with these sentiments, but I have yet to come up with a convincing counterargument.)

      And again, do low IQ whites create as much crime as blacks (Russians being a noted exception)?

    • JayMan / Dec 16 2016 12:45 PM

      HBD, as I’ve said many times before, shows that the racists and segregationists were, if not totally justified, certainly were not completely wrong in the ways they viewed blacks.

      Sure. But when one side argues for compete identical traits in all respects, almost anyone who says something different is going to be at least a little bit correct.

      But here’s the thing: facts are value-neutral. They don’t automatically tell you what to do about them. Human values and desires do that.

      Fact A does not automatically demand we take Action B.

      White nationalists of course have their own agenda to follow. One that they’re encountering a lot of friction against even with the ear of the man headed to the White House.

      What we should do is entirely a result of human drives. I’m not totally convinced widespread knowledge of HBD in the West will lead to widespread racism, but I admit it is a possibility.


  1. Outliers (#5)

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: