Thursday, November 29, 2012

America's Founding Fathers Speak on Immigration

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

A nation consists of people with potentialities and proclivities derived from their objective, biologically given natures. A nation isn't filled with abstractions, doesn't exist for the sake of abstract ideals, and changes when the makeup of its inhabitants change. Europeans in Africa created European societies. Africans in Detroit have created an African society.

Humans are not all the same and are not infinitely interchangeable. The global egalitarian idealization of all people as one is at odds with nature's diversity and with what the Founders intended the republic to be.

Here's what Benjamin Franklin wrote in a 1751 essay entitled "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind":

"The Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small... I could wish their Numbers were increased... Why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Compexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."

All Men Are Created Equal in Rights -- But Not Equal in Nature

In 1821, Thomas Jefferson wrote as follows in reference to the freeing of African slaves: "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers."

This is consistent with the 1790 Naturalization Act, which set forth the following qualifications for citizenship: a free white person of good character who has lived in the United States for two years.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not translate into "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness pertains to the lives, liberties, and happiness of the particular subset of the world's population that is fit to be called citizens of the United States.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Provocative Videos on Race and Liberty

Realism: The Most Controversial Premise of Our Time

The politically heterodox contents herein are grounded firmly in a reality that won't bend to social strictures or shibboleths. To open your eyes to the unmentionable realities of human nature is to embrace, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

Question conformity.

Enlarge IQ Bell Curves

The popular denial of innate racial differences in intelligence fosters moral outrage at extant IQ and academic achievement gaps. But racial differences are natural and intractable. Scientists have observed racial variations in brain size, brain structure, and brain fold complexity. The denial of racial differences that extend to the brain is the premise behind Affirmative Action and other government programs that seek -- but inevitably fail -- to equalize outcomes.


No topic of which I am aware gets to the core of an individual's ability to cope with reality better than race. If a person's intellectual core is emotionalism, moral dogmatism, or social conformism, bringing up race will [read more...]


A nation that seeks to repel invaders from penetrating its borders is using force defensively. The end-game of one-world, one-people, all-equal, open immigration idealism is [read more...]

Demographic Decline

Not all births are created equal in nature, and not all populations are inter-changeable.


Libertarian Realist's take on Ayn Rand: The equalitarian idealists expect what they’ve been expecting for decades: that which never has been and never will [read more...]

Debating the Deniers


The goal of “race as a social construct” dogma, as originated by leftist Richard Lewontin, was to undermine both the scientific study and common-sense understanding of [read more...]

More from Libertarian Realist
Being an individualist does not require me to undertake the impossible task of trying to assess the individual character of every single person I might ever encounter in life. Taking into account the relative probabilities entailed by some aspect of a person's identity is a form of critical thinking. To fail to engage in it -- over concerns of how others might recoil emotionally -- would be to bury my individuality. If you are an independent thinker who embraces science as applied to human beings and values freedom, then I invite you to follow my blog, subscribe to my YouTube channel, and spread the word by linking to this page.

Tip Jar

See more Libertarian Realist videos...

Sunday, November 25, 2012


"I can't meet you for lunch," says the hard-working professional to his spouse, "I have to be at a meeting."

"I can't play today," said the same individual at age 10 to his friend. "I have to do homework."

From early on in life, most people are taught to think of their lives in terms of fulfilling obligations. They are given orders by parents, teachers, and other authority figures. They begin to apply this mindset to what should be their personal value judgments. They say they "can't" do things really could do. They say they "have to" do things that they could choose not to do.

Falsely framing personal choices in terms of obligations is a form of self-denial. It denies an individual control over his own life and enables him to escape responsibility for his own choices, thus rendering him a psychological dependent on those who "create" obligations for him to fulfill. 

Self-liberated individuals don’t give other people the arbitrary power to impose obligations.  They don’t view the opinions of others as having metaphysical primacy.  Self-liberated individuals view their self-identity as primary. 

Most people go through life having never introspected enough to even know an identity apart from their socially defined one.   Most people go through life having never lived a day of their lives in psychological freedom.  They surrender their individuality, step by step, day after day.

The process begins in the earliest days of childhood and becomes thoroughly ingrained by adultoood.

As teenagers, they swallow and regurgitate the beliefs and attitudes of peers because they want to be popular.

As adults, they fulfill unchosen family and social obligations out of a sense of duty. They submit to and support government restrictions on their freedom because they believe that doing so is responsible.

They are victims of their own conformity -- their passive acquiescence to others' ideas and values.  It is conformity, therefore, that one must unlearn and grow out of if one wishes to be free -- and ultimately wishes to really live.    

Sunday, November 18, 2012

60 Minutes: Racism Is Natural

Paul Bloom: If you want to eradicate racism, for instance, you really are going to want to know to what extent are babies little bigots, to what extent is racism a natural part of humanity. 

Lesley Stahl: Sounds to me like the experiment show they are little bigots. 

Paul Bloom: I think to some extent, a bias to favor the self, where the self could be people who look like me, people who act like me, people who have the same taste as me, is a very strong human bias. It's what one would expect from a creature like us who evolved from natural selection, but it has terrible consequences. 

Babies help unlock the origins of morality

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

No Right to Immigrate

 A Libertarian Argument Against Prescribing Open Borders 

I’d like to begin with a hypothetical scenario.  If I got together with some like-minded individuals to buy up a large parcel of land and set up a private community, membership by invitation only, we wouldn’t be infringing upon anyone's liberty by refusing entry to some people. We'd be exercising our liberty, our freedom to associate and disassociate.

Suppose we continue to grow and built out infrastructure, begin to operate our own security services, and become self-sufficient. We don't need local, state, or federal governments for anything.  We wish to be left alone, unburdened by demands for taxes from governments from which we’ve disassociated.  So at some point we all unanimously vote to secede and become a sovereign nation. Maybe it’s unlikely we’d be successful. But let’s suppose we had weapons powerful enough to disincentivize the government from using force to try to prevent us from seceding. 

We declare our independence and we achieve it.  We occupy the same territory and enforce the same policies as before: entry by invitation only. (Before, we had to rely on the outside police to arrest and remove trespassers and aggressors. Now, we rely on our own internal police force.) Nothing has changed for people who want into our community. Some of them are denied entry, as before.

But now, unlike before, certain types of libertarians object.  They demand we adopt an open immigration policy.  They now insist that everyone has a right to take up residence in our micro-nation – from the aimless vagabond to the Somali Muslim. 

So suddenly, the world’s 7 billion people acquire a right that they didn’t possess before we declared our independence – the right to immigrate into our community.  And we have a corresponding moral duty to open our doors to all comers.  If we don’t, we violate their freedom to immigrate.

But either migrants’ rights were always being violated by us or they never were and aren't now.  Nothing changed for them in relation to us!  When we were a private community within a larger state and had a selective admissions policy, people were denied entry.  We inhabit that same exact geographical area now.  It was legally just as impenetrable to the rest of the world before as private property within a state as now, a sovereign micro-state.  The freedom of anyone in the world to take up residence in our land didn’t exist before and doesn’t now.  No one’s freedom status has changed.  No one’s rights have been violated.

If there is a right to associate and disassociate freely, and to separate and secede from oppressive governments and their voters, then there can be no such thing as a universal right to immigrate.

Any private land area that restricts movements into it could be an insipient nation that does the same exact thing in the same exact area, meaning nobody's freedom status outside it changes. Ted Turner owns more land in the U.S. than the total land area of many sovereign nations. Whether Turner fences off his land, or the same geographical area becomes "Turnerlandia" the nation, neither Turner nor Turnerlandia violate the rights of those who are refused entry for any reason. 

The notion of a universal right of everyone to immigrate everywhere is effectively a demand for nations to prevent insipient micro-nations from forming and ultimately for a global government to tear down border fences and make national boundaries meaningless.  Open immigration absolutism requires an effectively borderless world.  This can be achieved either through global government or global anarchy.

Neither ideal is conducive to the preservation of liberty.  Global government would obviously pose a nightmarish threat to liberty, and global anarchy is an unustainable pipe dream.

The alternative is libertarian nationalism.  A libertarian government exists to secure its citizens rights and interests, not the entire world's. It is not an act of aggression for a government to deny a foreigner citizenship or entry on any grounds, including nationality or race or religion or shoe size. Certain criteria could be considered arbitrary or irrational, but denying aliens entry on those grounds would still not be violating their rights.

It would be bizarre to suppose that the moment any baby is born in Uganda, the baby acquires a moral and legal right to be a U.S. citizen. Where would such a right come from? Americans didn’t cause Ugandans to come into existence and don’t owe them anything.  The relevant question is whether it’s in Americans' rational self-interest to automatically recognize all Ugandans as latent American citizens.  The answer can’t be deduced a priori from grand moral principles.

A country's immigration policy is contextual. Israelis are not duty bound to open their borders to the hostile Arabs who surround them in large numbers. To the contrary, what's moral for Israelis is what's in their own self-interest. What any number of Palestinians or Somalis or Canadians want Israel's immigration policy to be isn't directly relevant. It is in Isrealis' rational self-interest to task their government with implementing an immigration policy that will secure a sustainable future for the country as the non-Arab oasis it is. To put it bluntly, that means preventing an Arab majority from taking root. It's right for Israel to ensure its survival qua Israel, and it's right for the U.S., the nations of Western Europe, and all civilized nations to do likewise.

Would-be immigrants who are denied entry aren't being convicted of anything or aggressed upon. Their thwarted desires do not constitute an injustice. A nation's immigration policy exists solely to uphold and protect the rights and values of the citizens under its jurisdiction.

A nation that seeks to repel invaders from penetrating its borders is using force defensively. The end-game of one-world, one-people, all-equal, open immigration idealism is the end of nations.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Independence Day Address

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” 
                           - Thomas Jefferson

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Race Mixing

Lynn Barkley Burnett and Jonathan Adler, the authors of a 2005 study on domestic violence in the United States, found that “the incidence of spousal homicide is 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages compared to intraracial marriages.” older study found that white men who married black women were 21.4 times more likely to be killed by their spouses than white men who married white women. A white woman increased her risk of being killed 12.4 times by marrying a black man. [Fatal Violence Among Spouses in the United States, 1976-85, by James A. Mercy and Linda Saltzman, American Journal of Public Health, May, 1989.]

Dr. J. Richard Udry’s 2003 study of 90,000 middle- and high-school students found that black/white and white/Asian children were more likely to be depressed, sleep badly, skip school, smoke, drink, consider suicide, and have sex than children of just one race. [Health and Behavior Risks of Adolescents with Mixed-Race Identity, American Journal of Public Health, November 2003]

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Race and Intelligence: Unlocking the Truth

No topic of which I am aware gets to the core of an individual's ability to cope with reality better than race. If a person's intellectual core is emotionalism, moral dogmatism, or social conformism, bringing up race will bring it out.

Race itself isn't an emotional or a moral or a philosophical or a political or a social construct. Race -- or haplotype, cline, or population, or subspecies, or whatever term you prefer --  is a genetic construct produced by the adaptive process over thousands of years.

Race deniers seek to protect their social views against the perceived threat of acknowledging sets of distinct phenotypes produced by patterns of geographical isolatation in the distinct evolutionary lineages of individuals.  Race deniers deny that observable clusters of phenotypic distinctions among people, extending to skull shape and brain size, have objective biological existence.

Now with regard to questions of existence, it IS all or nothing. Either races exist or they do not. If they exist, and if there are intelligence differences among them, then the pertinent question is: To what DEGREE does racial inheritance itself cause the observed correlation?

To insist that race accounts for 0% of intelligence differences among phenotypically disparate populations is irrational and implausible. It would be to suppose that evolution endowed races with different skin, facial features, bone density, skull shape, leg length, testosterone levels, vocal resonance, and host of other phenotypical differences but left the brain itself untouched in some non-adaptive state, that once humans branched off into races, evolution shut down inside the brain but kept working everywhere else.

The responses race equalitarians give when their views on race are challenged are indicative of their emotionalist psychology and idealistic worldview. If positive claim X about race makes them feel uncomfortable or conflicts with their ideal of all races being innately equal, then positive claim X is transmuted into a normative claim in the mind of the denier so that the claim and the individual making it can be denounced via a moral rationalization that is irrelevant to the claim's objective truth or falsehood.

My views on race are an application of my own independent thinking on the subject. That's not the case for most people who espouse race equalitarianism, which is unfounded scientifically but reinforced socially and accorded the status of a pseudo-truth, not as a consequence of factual correctness but of political correctness. The person who succumbs to group-think in believing, without evidence, in innate equality because it feels good, is of a similar mindset as a person succumbs to group-think in believing, without evidence, in the superiority of his race because it feels good.

Tens of thousands of years of human geographic isolation produced racial distinctions all the way to the marrow of the bone.  Any practicing medical doctor who adopted denialist views on race would be committing malpractice. You have to be a race realist with regard to the body's internal chemistry to grasp, for example, that performing bone marrow or organ transplants from one race to another is dangerous. The immune system is likely to reject the implanted material as foreign. It is often very difficult for mixed race individuals find suitable bone marrow on the donor registry. Fortunately, we can pinpoint anyone's racial ancestry, however mixed, with great precision using DNA analysis.

What most deniers do is compartmentalize. They accept the biological reality of race when it's a useful concept to them and deny it in contexts when they view it as opening the door to something undesirable.   This is the fallacy of appealing to consequences.

To withhold full consideration of the factual merits of a claim until one knows that the facts will lead to "positive" outcomes (in an emotional or moral sense) is to invert the relationship between facts and values. All rational values are based on facts first identified objectively. An objective assessment takes into account only whether a claim corresponds with reality, not whether it accords with a pre-derived emotional or moral standard.

The notion that racial distinctions exist in all organs of the body...except the an fantastical one, especially in light of the fact that skull measurements show clearly identifiable racial traits on virtually every major feature of the skull, from eye orbits to teeth. Moreover, modern MRI scans show measurable differences in brain size and shape between Africans, Europeans, and East Asians.

Twin studies show that IQ is mostly inherited and identifiable in the brain itself. All environmental, economic, and cultural factors put together have less explanatory power than inheritance.

Racial variation exists biologically because the human species as it branched out geographically didn't stop evolving. Racial variation affects organs, body systems, and chemicals. Racial variation influences susceptibility to certain diseases, influences psychological traits such as extroversion, and influences cognitive capacity,

Charles Murray expects the black/white IQ gap to stay about the same or widen slightly in the decades ahead due to higher rates of dysgenic reproduction among blacks. The reason why he's not optimistic about socioeconomic improvements narrowing the gaps is because:

1) We observe that the gaps don't go away when controlling for socioeconomic status (blacks underperform when compared to other races across all income levels. 2) Part of the reason why blacks are disproportionately in poverty is because of their innately smaller brains and lower IQs, which translate into poorer job skills.

A strong heritability component to intelligence -- which is now proven, established science -- would not square with the degree and persistency of observed racial variation in intelligence unless the heritable traits for intelligence also vary by race. We know that traits for brain size vary by race, and that these variations line up with variations in measures of intelligence.

Obviously, there is overlap in racial IQ variation, just as there is overlap in height with the bell curves for men and women plotted against each other. Clearly, men are taller on average. Most of that is genetic, though certainly malnourishment and other environmental factors can stunt one's full height potential.

That women today might be as tall on average as men were in generations past does not mean that the male/female height gap has no genetic basis. In fact, it is mostly genetic. And so is the black/white IQ gap.

Even supposing that IQ was only 50% heritable, race differences in IQ could still be mostly heriditary in origin because environmental advantages/disadvantages between groups can cancel out. If Asians in the US don't have better environments than European-Americans on net, then the Asian IQ advantage can be 100% attributable to genetic differences, even if IQ variation among individuals is only 50% genetic.

Asians and Europeans have some environmental advantages over Africans on average, but there is more environmental variation within the races than between the averages of each race. So the black/white IQ gap has always been mostly genetic, except perhaps in the time of slavery (before IQ tests were given), and becomes more genetic as the social environments under which blacks and whites live become more similar. Frederick Douglass, assuming his IQ would have tested above average in adulthood, shows that even being enslaved doesn't prevent one's innate cognitive abilities from ultimately being realized and expressed. IQ becomes more heritable with age, and is about 75% so in adulthood according to the best science.

The genetic component of the race gaps can't be transcended, and any environmental component is likely to be caused largely by the innate IQ disparity itself (low-IQ people tend to inhabit and raise children in worse environments because of their low IQs).  Well-off, well-educated blacks have kids who on average score BELOW white kids whose parents are rednecks.
Therefore, as Murray suggests, we shouldn't expect the black/white IQ gap to narrow in the future (it hasn't in 40 years).  You can be an idealist and believe something else if you want or be a super-skeptic and refuse to believe or espouse any position, in which case reality will continue to escape your notice.

Reality, of course, is irrelevant to wishful thinkers and willful evaders. Still, IT IS.

Racial differences, no matter how much abhorred or denied, won't go away.  You can denounce them or close your eyes to them. But they're still going to be there, so you might as well open your eyes, open your mind, and deal with them.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

The Demographic Decline of the United States and the Western World

White Americans are set to become a minority. The changing face of the country will have consequences that are far more than cosmetic. Recent news events, along with analysis by Steve Farron, author of The Affirmative Action Hoax, show how and why.


Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Ad Hoc Arguments

I've sought to draw a reasonable inference to the best explanation for the consistency and persistency of racial IQ variances based on evolutionary theory and empirical observations.  All the evidence shows that while the IQ gaps narrow when raising up people from extremely impoverished environments to better ones, the gaps remain in all environments. Malnourished Asians not only outperform malnourished Africans, but also middle class Africans and Africans adopted into middle class European families.

J.P. Rushton reports:
Winick et al. [160] studied 141 Korean children malnourished-in-infancy and then adopted as infants by American families. They found that by 10 years of age the children exceeded the national average in IQ and achievement scores: A severely-malnourished group obtained a mean IQ of 102; a moderately-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an adequately-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 112. 
We know that genetic differences among races have some part in explaining why they perform differently on IQ tests. The question is what is the best estimate of the heritabile component of the gaps? Exactly "0%" for all race gaps everywhere is not a serious answer scientifically, but is rather evidence of one closing oneself off from evidence and being driven entirely by ideological pre-conceptions.

Anti-hereditarians who want their fixed a priori position to appear scientific and not purely a derivative of their ideological commitments will thus resort to ad hoc argumentation.  "In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying sense or logical framework. Because of this haste and lack of a consistent frame-work, the explanation is likely to contradict existing thought or other arguments. Usually it happens if someone is put on the spot to explain something - they can either deal with it in a consistent manner (meaning that their arguments are consistent for all eventualities so far), change their consistent beliefs to match, or produce an ad hoc explanation off-the-cuff to dismiss it" (

The following is excerpted from Robert J. Sternberg's Handbook of Human Intelligence:

Friday, May 18, 2012

It's Irresponsible to Feed Hungry Mouths


The thinking humanists of days gone by like Margaret Sanger supported sterilization. Today's humanists are much more religious, in that they derive their views from unquestionable doctrines of political correctness, and much more attracted to policies that deliver immediate emotional gratification (feeding hungry mouths) rather than delivering long-term returns on investment (eugenics).  If I randomly offered young Nigerian men $100 each to get vasectomies, I'm sure some would consent to it. Sterilization for women refers to a surgical procedure (see link) that permanently makes pregnancies impossible. It seems to me that this would be the most effective form of contraception. It's safer and less painful than giving birth.

Africa's Population Surge
At current growth rates, sub-Saharan Africa, which now makes up 12 percent of the world's population, will account for more than a third by 2100.

Birth control options for women - Female Sterilization


Killing Africa with Good Intentions

[Channel 4 News] Population explosion causes poverty crisis 
Formerly the capital of Nigeria, Lagos's uncontrolled population growth has made one of the world's largest cities one of the world's largest slums.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

IQ Distributions

The respective IQ distributions of any given races will show overlap. Height distributions among males and females also overlap (height is about 80% heritable; IQ is about 75% heritable).  

Among all people in the U.S. with IQs below 75, there are more blacks than whites.  Among all people in the U.S. with IQs above 100, there are several times more whites than blacks.

We shouldn't be surprised or morally outraged that in professions requiring high-level mental functioning, blacks will be relatively scarce absent Affirmative Action interventions. Denial of racial differences in distributions of cognitive capacity will tend to foster surprise, moral outrage, and demands for Affirmative Action in response to what is natural and entirely predictable.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

How Many Egalitarians Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?

Wattage was never intended to measure "brightness."

No one can say what "brightness" is.

"Bulb type" categories don't tell us anything about individual bulbs.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Race Realism: A Primer

Is belief in the innate equality of the cognitive meachanisms of phenotypically distinct humans, whose respective ancestors evolved separately in adaptation to different climates in different parts of the world, tenable in light of the latest science? I think that anyone who sets aside their emotions and their views on ethics and politics, and devotes one day of their life to focusing on the objective truth value of what's contained in the following sources, will be well-positioned to come to a fair conclusion.

DNA Turning Human Story Into a Tell-All

A skull that rewrites the history of man

Confirmed: All non-African people are part Neanderthal

Breeding with Neanderthals helped humans go global

Humans may have Neanderthals to thank for brains, U of C research suggests

Boas, Bones, and Race

The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences

Liberal Creationism
Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Heritability of IQ

Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence


Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash

Best evidence yet that a single gene can affect IQ

Tiny gene change affects brain size, IQ: scientists

Genes related to human head size identified

GWAS and Anatomy—Pooled Data Fingers Genes Driving Brain Size, IQ

Steven Pinker on Denial of Race and Intelligence

"Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it, and progress in neuroscience and genomics has made these politically comforting shibboleths (such as the non-existence of intelligence and the non-existence of race) untenable."

The words above are those of the eminent cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, as reported here:

Are We Still Evolving?

This balanced article suggests that variations in brain genes among different racial groups may help explain racial differences in intelligence. The science of identifying the specific genes responsible for intelligence is still somewhat speculative, but in the years ahead much of what's now merely hypothesized is likely to be proven. The sooner it happens, the sooner egalitarian creationism, and its institutional sanctification via political correctness, can be tossed into the dustbin of history.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Unpacking "Social Construct" Linguistics

Identifiable population groups that correspond with racial labels are referred to by sensible people as "races." Denying that these population groups exist if referred to as "races" or insisting they be called "social constructs" instead are examples of linguistic sophistry designed to confuse and befuddle rather than clarify and enlighten.

What is social construction? Philosopher Paul A. Boghossian answers as follows:

"To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves. It is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently. The inevitable contrast is with a naturally existing object, something that exists independently of us and which we did not have a hand in shaping.

"...If the preceding considerations are correct, social construction talk does not cogently apply to the facts studied by the natural sciences."

If scientists who study the genetic, skeletal, and neurological differences among human populations that evolved separately from one another for tens of thousands of years are engaged in “social construction,” then so are geologists who study rock formations. Call everything from galaxies down to sub-atomic particles “social constructs” if you want to, but doing so won’t make race any less real than anything else in the natural sciences.

The goal of “race as a social construct” dogma, as originated by leftist Richard Lewontin, was to undermine both the scientific study and common-sense understanding of race. It is corrupt terminology – or at least a corrupt application of it. “Social construct” talk is inapplicable to biology per se, including human biology and variations within it as expressed in the form of identifiable races.

The only possible referent of "social construct” is something that is actually constructed socially. Black History Month is a social construct since it can only be created by social forces. It is a cultural, not a biological, phenomenon. Black people are not social constructs, since their distinguishing biological characteristics exist independent of any social category ascribed to them.

There are lots of social and cultural constructs associated with the black race, and the distinction between what's racial and what's cultural in influencing the behavior of blacks (and individuals of other races) isn't always clear. Both biology and culture play roles. It is the interaction between the two that is denied by the social constructivists, whose aim is to thwart any biological explanations for non-superficial racial differences.

“Race” and “species” name underlying biological realities. By contrast, laws and holidays name social conventions. Laws are constructed by social forces alone. Races pre-exist our identification of them.

Racial distinctions were genetically constructed and are identifiable as they manifested through the fossil record. Racial distinctions exist materially, just like the various types of rock formations that geologists study. That’s what social constructivists want to deprive you of being able to grasp.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Rejecting Implausible Theories

Innate racial equality in the distribution of cognitive capacity is an ideological belief. Were it to be evaluated apart from its broad-based normative attractiveness, the equalitarian hypothesis would be rejected universally.

It would be a miraculous coincidence if nature managed to produce differences everywhere within the organism except mental functioning. Miraculous explanations that can't explain the totality of the evidence of racial differences -- as observed consistently in testing and seen in actual brain size averages, which correlate positively with IQ scores -- deserve not equal consideration with hereditarian theories that are harmonious with the evidence, deserve not mere skepticism, but instead deserve rejection for their implausibility.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Happy MLK Day

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Anti-Rights Leader

By Thomas Stelene

America regards Martin Luther King, Jr. as a crusader who continued the Founders' work. Americans view him as a martyr for freedom and honor him with a holiday; people from all sides of the political spectrum revere him and laymen respect him. Nobody questions King's supposed belief in liberty for all.

But how many people know what King actually believed? Evidently, very few, because King's beliefs are incompatible with America's founding principles. He states in his book Why We Can't Wait that the collectivistic cliché "no man is an island" will in the future "find its truest application in the United States."

King's "civil rights" movement caused the loss of individual freedom, not the expansion of it. This is demonstrated in King's view of private segregation as "oppression." Granted segregation was psychologically "oppressive" because it was anti-individualistic and thus caused blacks to have anxiety, resentment toward whites, and such. But in itself, private segregation does not violate anyone's political freedom. Only force and fraud can infringe freedom. Private segregation involves neither.

A restaurant owner has the right to set the terms of how his property may be used and he has the right to associate with whom he pleases. His decision to segregate or even prohibit blacks, whites, drunkards, albinos, or whoever, is his right because it is his restaurant (the soundness of his reasoning is another matter). Those people are free to go elsewhere. They are free to try to persuade him to change his mind. They are also free to boycott and peacefully demonstrate.

It is pounded into our heads that "discrimination" oppresses minorities. According to Webster's Universal Dictionary of 1936, "discriminate" means "to distinguish; to observe the difference between; to select from others." In Webster's New World Dictionary of 1974, "discrimination" has an additional meaning: "a showing of partiality or prejudice in treatment; specif., action or policies directed against the welfare of minority groups." Before the left's politics corrupted our language, there was no mention of "minorities" nor any implied evaluation that discrimination is "bad" because such politically-charged commentaries were rightly regarded as non-essential to the definition.

Collectivists hate even legitimate forms of discrimination. Discrimination means individual value judgment, so they vilify it. They want universal sameness: an end to individual thought. That is part of their basis for so-called "civil" rights.

King established "civil rights" as a solution to "discrimination." The term "civil rights" invokes the context of society, as if these are a specific category of rights. The fact is that King's "civil rights" violate real rights.

Ayn Rand defined rights as "the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." Rights only apply to freedom of action. "Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective -- as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross." And most importantly, a right "is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission." That means a man does not need others in the exercising of his rights; he only needs protection from them.

When a white refuses to hire or promote a black because of race, or when a white property owner practices segregation or prohibition of blacks on his property, King claimed that blacks' "civil rights" were violated. But how can these be violations of a black man's freedom to act? No man has a right to be hired. No man has a right to be promoted (unless there's a violation of a contract). No man has the right to trespass.

Anything that is called a "civil right" cannot be exercised independently. Unlike a proper right, "civil rights" require that there be others for the agent to act upon. "Civil rights" are the supposed "rights" of the Collective against man. "Civil rights" deny the right of property use and the right to freely associate, which is the denial of the right to act on one's thoughts.

Another of King's bad ideas is the notion that economic and political power are the same. Rand attributed that mistake to "evading the difference between trade and force." But what would happen to "civil rights" if employers went on strike, like the "civil right" to not be "discriminated" against in hiring? Could any "civil rights" be exercised? No, they could not even exist because they demand that other men provide something to the man exercising his "civil rights."

What if failing businessmen coalesced into a new "civil rights" movement, asserting their right to stay in business and claimed people were violating their "civil rights" by refusing to buy their products and services? After all, consumers are "discriminating" against them, thus causing them to face bankruptcy. Obviously a "civil rights" law for entrepreneurs would give them a privileged status and allow them to exploit consumers.

But that is exactly what "civil rights" are -- legal privileges to exploit others. Furthermore, "civil rights" keep the alleged beneficiaries in a state of dependence because the implication is that in order to have rights other men are needed. As Rand said, "You don't gain independence by starting on a subsidy." "Civil rights" negate independence. Genuine rights affirm independence.

King claimed "civil rights" are supposed to address the inequalities stemming from "discrimination," so that we are all equal, like the Declaration of Independence says. But "all men are created equal" is meant in a political context, not any other. It means that the people's servant, the government, must treat them as equals. Men are unequal in intellect, character, and wealth, but those inequalities should be irrelevant to proper government. "All men are created equal" does not mean that government must force men to treat or view each other as equals. That government would be a dictatorship.

"Civil rights" obfuscate rights with alleged "needs" and wants. Egalitarian collectivists like King concocted government-enforced claims on others in the form of collective "civil rights" to ostensibly guarantee equal outcomes.

Everyone has the right to pursue needs and wants, but there is no right to the automatic satisfaction of them at the expense of the rights of others. Rights pertain to individual actions, which may or may not produce the actor's desired results, depending on his ability, intelligence, etc.

King demonstrated his utter contempt for individual merit and individual rights when he demanded that blacks be given special treatment and compensation from the government. King wrote: "The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures" including racial quotas in hiring. He predicted that inevitably "a broad-based legion of the deprived, White and Negro, will coalesce and restructure an old order based too long on injustice." He called for a "Bill of Rights of the Disadvantaged" that would expand those "compensatory measures," meaning, unearned privileges, to any other groups regarded by collectivist-egalitarians as "oppressed."

Under King's morality, political freedom is impossible. Those who claim to have "civil rights" claim the legal privilege to exploit others. When these victims do not comply, the privileged scream that their "civil rights" were violated. When people lack the necessary philosophical knowledge to differentiate between genuine liberty and its opposite, they will accept the fraud of "civil rights."

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Gender and Intelligence

Science sheds light on why feminists aren't the brightest of the bright.

(Normal speed.)

(21% accelerated.)