Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Take up the liberal man's burden

The latest controversy ripping through the Gamma Rabbit warren is Vox Day's comments about some SF/F author I've never heard of. Can't you just feel the passion?

Moderns speak much of equality but seldom do they address the question "Equal with respect to what?" When we make a claim of equality, we claim that two distinct things are essentially identical. In mathematics, that essence is quantity: two plus two is equal to four. In what way can it be said that all human beings are equal? I am not equal to Kobe Bryant in terms of athletic talent. I am not equal to Albert Einstein in sheer intellectual power. I'm not equal to William Shakespeare in writing ability. I'm not equal to my own father in terms of physical height.

Obviously a claim of human equality will have to be within the realm of the abstract. All human beings are equal in the sense that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. All of us are equal in that we will all be judged according to the same standard: loving God and loving our neighbor.

Liberals don't like that kind of equality though so they prefer to speak of equality before the law. Even this doesn't make a lot of sense though. Laws against trespassing are not going to be equally enforced if Bob is a homeowner and Joe is not. Every human law requires an authoritative discrimination at the level of particulars. That's almost a definition of law all by itself: an authoritative discrimination. In a sense, the entire liberal project is contradictory: they want us to discriminate without discriminating.

Human biodiversity holds that there are intractable differences between the different races. On average, whites and Asians IQs are one standard deviation higher than blacks and Hispanics. The liberal instinctively finds this deeply offensive. They read it as an assertion of superiority, but that doesn't follow at all. Having rejected God, they calculate human equality in terms of our ability to achieve worldly goals. Therefore, the Gap is the greatest problem facing American education. The Gap is something they agonize over, endlessly debate, and work tirelessly to close. They will fudge standards and give extra credit, anything at all to narrow the Gap. Yet the Gap stubbornly persists. The Gap still exists despite legions of liberal do-gooders best efforts. The Gap will always be with us because it is in the nature of things.

Human life has intrinsic moral value. Superiority and inferiority has nothing to do with it when we assert that some people are better able to build and maintain advanced technological civilizations than others. If, however, we have already rejected the laws of nature and nature's God then it follows that we must believe in the myth of Zero Group Differences. Everyone implicitly understands that if there is no God and no afterlife, then the myth of ZGD is the only thing separating the liberal superman from the Nazi.


  1. Hello,

    the reason why "Liberals" (and scientists of both persuasions, for that matter) "don't like" the position that Whites are "more intelligent" than Blacks is because we have no independent means to assess "intelligence".

    What is intelligence? In your post, you reference the (very slightly) higher scores that American Whites achieve on standardized intelligence tests as indicative of "higher IQs".

    What are these "IQs" of which you speak? What do they actually produce? How do they affect your life? Does having an IQ of 101 vs 98 make you demonstrably better at a job?

    I've scored very high on IQ tests, but met countless individuals who:
    1. Had more money
    2. Were more successful
    3. Were better spoken
    4. Were more well-rounded
    5. Were more physically fit and healthy
    6. Were happier
    7. etc, rinse, repeat

    The reason that "Liberals" dislike your statement is because it is a pointless statement. Yes, White Americans tend to score slightly higher on standardized tests created by other White Americans.

    Interestingly, women tend to perform far better than men at school, but make less in the workforce. They also get raped, killed by intimate partners, and abused by intimate partners more often, so I guess being "smarter" isn't really good enough to succeed in this world.

    What is the magic glue that keeps white men making more, being killed less often, and being raped less?

    1. I've noticed that everyone who questions the efficacy of IQ tests always takes pains to mention that they personally have a high score.

      IQ tests measure abstract thinking and pattern recognition, two things which are vital to functioning in civilized society. IQ is actually a fairly good predictor of lifetime earnings. There may not be great differences between men with IQs of 101 vs 98, but there is an enormous difference between men with IQs 115 and 85. The reason why there is an "Achievement Gap" in American schools is that whites and Asians generally have IQs one standard deviation higher than blacks and Hispanics. Much of the disfunction in the American education system is rooted in the notion that the Gap can be closed if we spend more money. But the Gap will never be closed. Liberals dislike that idea because if it became more widely accepted than Americans would elect the cryogenically frozen brain of Hitler as president. Or something.

      Women make less in the workforce on average because they take more time off, call in sick more often, and frequently drop out of the workforce all together when they have children.

  2. Can you post the peer-reviewed studies and data that confirm your position regarding women in the workplace)?

    Can you post the peer reviewed study showing that whites with higher IQs actually are more valuable, and provide more actual value, and deserve more money?

    1. As an aside, white quarterbacks earn more, because quarterbacks are paid based on thrown yards, which white quarterbacks tend to focus on.

      However, black quarterbacks win more often and more reliably, because running yards are actually more valuable in winning a game.

      Due to a lack of data collection, historically it was believed that thrown yards were more valuable.

      Despite study and research revealing this, no changes to the formula are proposed. Whites continue to pick the more individually rewarding yet long term losing technique of thrown yards. Blacks continue to pick the individually unrewarding but ultimately successful tactic of running yards.

      Kind of like our money driven society: women focus on the long term success of our civilization, and many men go the short term quick personal success route of "managing" money and other non producing jobs.

      Weird-I think I just realized that by intelligence, you mean selfishly focusing on ones self and not society at large.

      Unless, of course, you find the statistics and research I asked about.