Part 1. The History of Race
Race has been a controversial topic for a while, and with the alt right and social justice movements growing in numbers and influence, it’s only becoming a more polarizing topic. Both sides have some good points, some bad points, and some incredible feats of hypocrisy and inconsistency, while centrists tend to avoid the topic of race like the plague, offering only bland and meaningless platitudes to deflect from a real analysis of the differences in ability, behavior, and treatment of each race. This makes it a difficult subject to discuss objectively, but I’m going to try.
Before we get into the facts about each race’s traits and situation, it helps to understand the framework race exists within. We live in an evolutionary universe where natural selection has been the law for at least the 3.5 to 4 billion years in which life has existed on our planet. All of humanity shares common ancestors if you go back at least a hundred thousand years, and like every other species on our planet, our environment has shaped the development of different groups of people in different places differently to produce a wide variety of people with different abilities and traits. Some of these traits are superficial, such as lighter or darker skin, which largely depends on the average amount of sun within the environment your ancestors lived in. Others are not so superficial, such as the greater mathematical ability of Orientals who had more widespread formal education more consistently for longer than most other racial and ethnic groups, or greater linguistic ability among Jews who traveled more frequently between different nations both for trade and when forcibly moved due to political, economic, and/or religious unrest. The history of each people has shaped them, just as our present will shape future generations.
The races as we think of them today are not immutable. A hundred thousand years ago, the racial groups we think of today – European/Caucasians, Africans, Arabs, Indians, Orientals, Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals – did not exist. Homo Sapiens as a race lived alongside Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Floresiensis. These other races mostly died out about 40,000 years ago, but there are traces of Neanderthal DNA in most non-Africans, and Denisovan DNA in many Asians and native Americans. It seems that these other races bred with Homo Sapiens before being otherwise wiped out. Even a few thousand years ago, there were distinct racial and ethnic groups that today have been mixed into other racial and ethnic groups, and new racial and ethnic groups that have formed since then. Various racial and ethnic groups spread their DNA into others. Hispanics did not exist until about 500 years ago, but today there are half a billion people of Hispanic descent, most of whom are a combination of native American, southwestern European, and African DNA. As Hispanics continue to intermix among themselves, they are creating a new and distinct race.
This brings us to the first problem with both the alt right and the social justice left. The alt right and the white supremacist/white nationalist movements see whiteness (or, for some in the alt right, specific European ethnicities such as British, French, and German) as an immutable trait, and all too often become obsessed with the racial purity of members of their groups. In an evolutionary sense, there is no such thing as racial or ethnic purity. Today’s Brits are descended from a mix of ancient Celts, Picts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Romans, Scots, Irish, Vikings, and others who settled and invaded Britain over the past few millennia, many of whom were once distinct ethnic groups that no longer exist as a distinct group. White Americans are an even more diverse mix of people from all across Europe, having seen massive waves of immigration from Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Italy who frequently intermixed while here, and many white Americans also have small amounts of native American or African DNA, while the average African American is less than 3/4 African and nearly 1/4 European, with some native American DNA mixed in as well, and Hispanics in the US are about 6% African, 18% Native American, and 65% European. Other nationalities in Europe are not only a mix of various European tribes, but in many cases non-Europeans as well. Spaniards have a significant mix of North Africans and Jews, though these genes have spread rather evenly within the Iberian peninsula over the past few centuries, turning Spain into a basically homogenous people despite their mix of a variety of previously distinct racial groups. Southeastern Europe is a mix of even more ancestral groups, including Germanic, Italic, Sardinian, and other western-European groups who migrated and invaded over the years, the native Slavic and Greek populations, Arabs from Islamic conquests, Jews from their many migrations, central Asians from invasions by the Huns and Mongols, and others, only to blend into new distinct ethnic groups that are often a mix of many different ancient peoples.
But while the idea of racial or genetic purity may be a myth, genetic excellence is not a myth, and there are a wide variety of physical and mental abilities that are passed on through genes. While the social justice left likes to believe that all of humanity is basically equal and that race is a social construct, the genetic history of Europe and the rest of the world tells a very different story. Far from being a history of peaceful intermixing between people of relatively equal status, history is a tale of superior people conquering inferior people time and time again. Italic genes can be found all throughout Europe due to the Roman conquests, while Slavic DNA is largely confined to eastern Europe as the Slavs were frequently conquered throughout history but rarely conquered anyone themselves (though their Aryan cousins spread their DNA outside eastern Europe by mixing with the Nords, who invaded much of Europe). When the Arab Muslims were the most advanced people on Earth for a few centuries in the middle ages, they conquered and spread their DNA throughout the Middle East, North Africa, parts of eastern Europe, and what was once northwest India but is now Pakistan. Pakistanis, by the way, includes multiple ethnic groups with Greek DNA from Alexander the Great’s conquests, others with Jewish DNA from their diaspora as they were spread by conquest and enslavement by the Babylonians and others, Iranian DNA from Persian conquests, Mongolian DNA from Genghis Khan’s conquests, as well as their Arab conquerors and the conquered Indians. Speaking of Genghis Khan, the man’s incredible physical prowess and genius level strategic creativity not only allowed him to kill about as many people as Stalin or Mao (or a few Hitlers) at a time when the world’s population was far smaller, it also allowed him to spread his genes to countless women among the people he conquered, so many that approximately 37 million men of Asian descent carry a Y chromosome marker believed to have been passed down to them by Genghis and his close male relatives. When Europe’s enlightenment and renaissance helped them retake the lead in scientific and technological advancement from the Muslims as Islamic fundamentalism rose to prominence in their society, the Europeans conquered the Americas and Australia, mixing with the locals to create the Hispanic/Latino people and largely replacing the native populations of the US, Canada, and Australia through a combination of war, forced relocation, and outbreeding them. People of a variety of different racial and ethnic groups have brutally conquered and been brutally conquered throughout history, and while cultural differences and different levels of scientific and technological advancement played a major role in determining the winners and losers, it would be foolish to assume that genetic differences played no part (not only in determining military prowess, but affecting the development of their culture and scientific advancements).
While many on the left will argue that the fact that many different racial and ethnic groups have been the most advanced or had the most powerful military at different points to a sort of equality between all humans, the reality is far more complicated. The genetic makeup of a population changes from one generation to the next, as the most evolutionarily successful members of the population pass on their genes to more offspring while the least successful have no offspring at all. The social, environmental, economic, and military factors that affect people’s success and the way their population is changing change over time as well. For example, ancient Sparta’s militant culture, eugenic policies, and preference for breeding with strong women of relatively equal status and power produced the best fighting force in ancient Greece, but those same cultural factors led to a high mortality rate from frequent warfare, a high infant mortality rate from discarding unhealthy children, and lower birth rates from wives who were harder to pressure to breed more to replace their losses. This resulted in a population decline from a high of 20,000-35,000 free Spartans who could field an army of 9000 in 500 BC to an army of no more than 5000 and a population of about 12,000-20,000 free Spartans half a dozen generations later when the Spartan army’s loss at Leuktra marked the end of their military dominance in ancient Greece. Their eugenic policies made them stronger, faster, and fiercer, but their cultural rigidity prevented them from adapting as their situation changed, and adaptability is just as important to evolutionary survival as capability. They also refused to breed outside their local ethnic group, which at first helped them maintain the genetic excellence they had cultivated, but over time (especially as their population steadily dwindled) it likely resulted in a higher number of recessive genetic diseases, causing more of their offspring to be deemed unfit for survival and reducing the size of their population further, exacerbating their problems as they descended into a purity spiral (a concept that the alt right comedy group Murdoch Murdoch hilariously portrayed in Pure 100% Bavarian Phenotype (this video may get taken down but will probably be reuploaded elsewhere)).
And just as purity can destroy a population, so can diversity based on equality. Just because the races are fluid and change over time doesn’t mean they are a purely social construct or that their particular traits don’t matter, as many on the left would have you believe. Consider the rise and fall of ancient Rome. When Rome overthrew its king and established the Roman Republic, citizens were granted a right to elect their leaders, and while political power was initially concentrated in the Patrician upper class, the Plebeian lower class steadily gained more power throughout the Republic era, eventually resulting in a system where the two Consul executive positions were divided between one Patrician and one Plebeian for most of the later years of the Republic, along with increasing influence over the Senate and local assemblies. The political power exercised by the lower classes required a certain amount of education to use it wisely, and Rome went from informal home schooling to fairly widespread formal education and training to prepare their citizens for this responsibility. It was during this era that Rome conquered the entire Italian peninsula (including multiple Greek settlements), defeated Carthage, and took large swathes of territory in Spain, Gaul (now France), Greece, and nearly the entire Mediterranean coast aside from Egypt and Mauritania. Emigration from Rome was common, as the wealth gained from Roman conquests was vast and enabled a growing population, and many soldiers settled in the lands they conquered, while immigration into Rome increased throughout this period, usually in the form of conquered slaves. The free people with political power and rights were initially ethnically homogenous Romans, who tended to have a very practical mindset, focusing on learning useful skills and on combat training over general knowledge and overall fitness. Over time this class of people expanded to include people descended from other Italian tribes and nations, and eventually people from further parts of Europe and the Mediterranean, including many educated Greeks who influenced much of Roman culture and whose knowledge helped the Romans maintain their advantage over their neighbors. However, as the Roman capital took in more and more immigrants, freed more and more slaves, and created more mixed descendants of Romans and the people they conquered with each passing generation, the increasingly diverse population of Rome and the relatively ethnically homogenous ruling class grew apart from one another. Many descendants of the early Romans died in their many wars, only to be replaced by the slaves they captured. The Republic gave way to the Empire, which at first attempted to maintain the political rights of the Plebeian class and free people of Rome, but over time created more bureaucratic barriers between the people and the ruling elite. The once cooperative relationship between the ruling class and lower class of free people gave way to a relationship of mutual exploitation as land and wealth became more concentrated in the hands of a ruling class that made up a smaller portion of Rome’s population while the people demanded more and more handouts from their government, placated only by bread and circuses. Rome continued its conquests at a slower pace, conquering the remainder of the Mediterranean coast, Britain, and the coast of the Black Sea throughout the first century and a half of Imperial rule, at which point they stopped conquering new territories. The Roman army, once united in securing the safety, power, and wealth of Rome, lost sight of that goal and Imperial generals began to fight each other for power. By the third century AD, Roman armies were comprised mostly of non-Roman troops and were more likely to be fighting one another for control of Rome’s territory than to be fighting Rome’s enemies, despite the growing threat of the Goths, Franks, Huns, and Sassanids, and other foreign nations and empires. When the city of Rome finally fell, it was at the hands of Germanic troops who were part of the Roman army until they revolted. By that time, the practical traits that had originally made the Romans so capable, and the intellectualism of the Greeks they conquered early on, had been lost to an overwhelming flood of immigrants from the inferior nations they’d conquered. While many of the people Rome conquered early in its history assimilated into the empire and contributed to its success, Rome eventually took in too many people from too many disparate groups who failed to assimilate and never saw themselves as truly Roman, leading to internal turmoil and the eventual collapse of their empire.
The takeaway from all of this should be that neither the alt right nor the social justice left have an ideology rooted in history or evolutionary reality. Neither equality nor purity exist in an evolutionary sense, and chasing either of those things can easily lead to a nation or people’s downfall. The quest for eugenic and selective purity that led to Sparta’s rise also led to its downfall, just as Rome’s embrace of egalitarianism and diversity helped them along their rise to greatness and caused their fall. Genetic improvement requires a combination of natural selection to promote the survival of traits that are good for the population, remove harmful traits, and maintain enough homogeneity within a population to make cooperation beneficial, and of genetic (and, for humans, ideological) diversity to reduce the buildup of harmful recessive traits, introduce beneficial traits from other populations, and keep the population adaptable enough that they can survive changes to their situation and environment. Both selection and diversity are good things up to a point, but taking either to an extreme at the expense of the other is self destructive. The social justice left has embraced diversity (though it can be argued that they fail to respect white/European contributions to human diversity), while the alt right has embraced selection (though it can be argued that by being hyperselective in favor of their own race they undervalue positive traits in other populations that humanity should select for). As a result, it is unlikely that we can find the right answers to questions of racial differences in ability and behavior without taking pieces of the answers from both sides.
Part 2. Differences in Racial Ability
It should be obvious that humans are all different. Each individual is shaped by the unique combination of genes passed down to them as a result of their ancestry and the reproductive process that randomizes the portions of their parents’ DNA they receive. Each individual is also shaped by their circumstances, by the environment they grow up in and the family and community that raises them, but each family and community is also shaped by the assortment of genes in the people of that family and community. People can do a lot to affect the environment that younger generations develop in, and the environment people live in affects the likelihood of various traits being passed on and surviving in future generations, changing the abilities of the people in that environment. But while it is important to remember that these things can change, it is also important to recognize the significant differences in average ability between the world’s many racial and ethnic groups. These differences, as well as the rate at which they change, can be measured, and that brings us to the main focus of this article – what differences in ability can be proven to exist between different racial groups, and which racial groups are better at what things?
Before we jump into the discussion of intelligence, it should be noted that intelligence (especially the specific types of intelligence measured on most IQ tests) is not the only ability that is useful to our survival. Many physical abilities affect our ability to survive and to perform a variety of jobs. Blacks in the US tend to excel at athletics relative to members of other races. 28 of the 81 Heisman trophy winners for excellence in college football have been black, which is especially impressive since the first 25 winners were all white (while college football was never officially segregated, many colleges were segregated until the 1960s, and black college students were far more rare until that time). The NBA was a whopping 74% black from 2015-16 and only 18% white, and 70% of NFL players are black as well. Despite recent social media campaigns to label the Oscars and Grammys racist (with no real evidence of discrimination), nobody seems particularly upset that blacks are overrepresented in sports. Internationally, Africans (as well as Americans and Jamaicans of primarily African descent) also hold dozens of world records in athletic events, more than Europeans and white Americans and considerably more than Orientals, Arabs, and Hispanics. It’s very likely there’s a genetic reason for this. One genetic allele, dubbed 577R, is associated with significant improvement in running speed and muscle strength relative to those who don’t have it by affecting the creation of proteins needed to build strong muscles. That allele is most common in Africa and among people of African descent. The percent of people who have two of this allele (one from each parent, and the best combination for sprinting) is 15% for the Japanese, 22% for Indians, 25% for Asians overall, 34% for Hispanics, 36% for European whites, 60% for American blacks, and 81% for Africans Bantus. While this means that Africans will, on average, be better at many athletic events than Europeans and Europeans will be better than Asians and about as good as Hispanics, it should be noted that this does not mean that all Africans will be better than all Europeans or even all Asians, or that the best Asians won’t be just as good as the best Africans (even if there are far more Africans at the highest levels of physical ability than Asians or Europeans), as basketball star Yao Ming proved when he was the tallest NBA player despite being Chinese while the Chinese have a shorter average height than Africans and Europeans. But while the distribution of genes within a population may not matter on an individual level (as each individual either has or doesn’t have those genes), the racial distribution of such genes does have an effect on group averages and group based competition such as war and economics that were historically important to human development.
There are also types of intelligence which are difficult to test for. Musical aptitude is almost never included in intelligence testing, and while tests can certainly be devised for things like tone/melody recognition, sense of rhythm, and understanding of musical structure, the value of music is far more subjective than that of math, language, and pattern recognition. Almost no research has been done on differences in musical aptitude by race, but when it comes to music awards, black Americans seem to dominate. At the Grammys, 23% of Album of the Year winners, 20% of Record of the Year winners, 23% of Song of the Year winners, and 40% of Best New Artist winners have been black in a country that was 10% black when the Grammys began and is 13% black today (nearly all the awards have gone to American artists and the numbers don’t change much when you leave out international artists). Of the top four Grammy winners in history, 3 are black. While this is hardly a scientific assessment and in no way proves that there are racial differences in musical ability or musical intelligence, it’s certainly reasonable to hypothesize that black Americans have better musical intelligence than white Americans, especially when you consider their fundamental role in the development of jazz, rock, and rap. And while many on the left claim that differences in intellectual ability and achievement are environmental and not genetic, they make no explanation for why those same environmental factors don’t prevent blacks from developing physically or developing exceptional musical ability at disproportionately higher rates than other races.
A lot more research has been done on the subject of general intelligence and the differences in average intelligence between members of different races. The Bell Curve, despite the negative criticism it’s received (from people who typically have no ability to challenge the evidence it presents), is one of the best sources on this topic. The Bell Curve found a significant difference in the IQ distribution of blacks and whites in the US, with the average black American being more intelligent than only 11% of whites, while the average white American is more intelligent than about 91% of blacks. This is, of course, only an average, and in no way justifies discrimination against the 9% of blacks who are more intelligent than the average white person any more than it justifies tolerance of the 11% of whites who are less intelligent than the average black person. But one of the biggest criticisms of The Bell Curve is the claim that it doesn’t do enough to explain the reasons why the IQ distribution between whites and blacks is so large. Many on the left claim that these differences are primarily due to a person’s environment, not genetic differences, or nurture rather than nature. However, a peer reviewed metastudy of 30 years worth of research on racial differences on intelligence came to the opposite conclusion: while environmental and cultural factors do affect a person’s cognitive development, they fail to explain the full racial difference in average intelligence. It should be noted that while there are many intelligence researchers who disagree with the theory that differences in intelligence exist between racial groups (despite stronger evidence to the contrary and the near impossibility of that being the case in an evolutionary universe), and some room for disagreement as to the extent of those differences, there is essentially no disagreement that differences in average intelligence exist, or with the general pattern of Jews (or at least Ashkenazi/European Jews) and Orientals having higher average IQs than non-Jewish Europeans/whites, while blacks/Africans, Hispanics/Latinos, Arabs, and Indians have lower average IQs, even among left wing academics. Left wing sociological theories also fail to explain the full reason behind environmental and cultural differences between racial groups, and to consider how a people’s environment affects their genes over time. If genetic differences do exist between the races (and in an evolutionary world where every population of every kind of organism on Earth has developed differently due to differences in their environment and heredity, it’s nearly impossible to imagine how they could not), it’s hard to imagine how culture could develop without being affected by the genetic traits of the people developing it, and it makes at least as much sense to assume that the genetic distribution of a population affects the environment and culture they develop in as it does to assume that their environment and culture affect their intellectual development. It also makes sense to assume that, over time, the environment a particular group of people live in (including interactions with members of their own racial group, interactions with other racial groups, and their natural environment) would affect their genes over time.
Consider, for example, the difference between the Jews and black Americans. Both European Jews and African Americans faced significant discrimination and oppression for centuries, but the type of oppression they faced was very different. Africans taken to the Americas for forced labor were kept under tight control, and the most intelligent and creative members of the black slave population were typically the most likely to die as they were the most likely to try to escape or attempt to organize slave revolts. Slavery’s goal was domestication and control, which had a very different effect on their development than that of the Jewish people. During the time period of the Atlantic slave trade and American slavery, Jews were expelled from almost every major country in Europe at least once, and often kept out for centuries. These expulsions, however, typically killed the least intelligent and creative Jews who were either too socially unaware to flee before being killed or unable to adapt to life in a new society. As a result, most studies on racial and ethnic differences in intelligence that include the Jews find that they have the highest average IQ, with especially good linguistic ability (as would be expected of a people whose survival depended on their ability to learn a new language every few generations as they were forcibly removed from one country and forced to flee to another), but also above average mathematical ability (possibly due to their overrepresentation in banking and international trade), though some other areas of intelligence, such as spatial awareness, are no better than that of non-Jewish whites. Even if Jews and west Africans had been genetically equal prior to this period (which they likely weren’t), the massive difference in the way their environment affected each group over the past few centuries would have caused a significant divergence in their abilities. Despite making up only a fraction of a percent of the world’s population and only about 2% of the population of the US and Europe, Jews have earned over 25% of Nobel prizes for science, and are vastly overrepresented in other scientific and technological awards such as the Turing Awards for computer science and the Fields Medal for math, where they are again roughly 25% of prize winners. Africans and African Americans, on the other hand, despite being a much larger percent of both the US and world population, have won only one Nobel prize for science (William Arthur Lewis for economics), no Fields Medals, and no Turing Awards. If natural selection is our creator, it would seem the Jews truly are its chosen people, having faced some of the harshest natural selection in history to become the most intelligent and adaptable people on Earth (though many in the alt right would argue that the Jews who are disproportionately likely to have positions of power and influence in our media and financial institutions are more likely to use their power to benefit themselves at the expense of others than to help humanity generally, but that subject of debate is beyond the scope of this article), while Africans have gotten the short end of the stick.
In the US, according to Murray, blacks have an average IQ of 85, Hispanics (with their mix of African, European, and native American DNA) have an average IQ of 89, whites 103, Asians 106 (which refers primarily to east Asians/Orientals, as Arabs and Indians were not included in the cited research), and Jews 113. Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, in IQ and Global Inequality, attempted to estimate the average IQ of each country, and found similar results – Singapore and Hong Kong had the highest average IQs at 108, both Koreas averaged 106, Japan and China 105, giving Orientals a higher average IQ than the white European nations, while Mongolia came in a bit further behind at 101 and southeast Asia was mostly in the low 90s. Western Europe – the primarily Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Italic countries – all fell between 95-102 with the exception of Ireland at 92, as did the Nordic countries, while the more Slavic and Finnic countries of eastern Europe did a bit worse, falling between 91-99. Chile and Mexico were the top Latin American countries with average IQs of 90, while Guatemala and El Salvador were at the bottom at 79 and 80. Turkey topped the Middle East at 90, while Qatar was the lowest Middle Eastern country with 78, giving them a similar range of IQs to Hispanics/Latinos. Even the three Muslim majority countries with higher average incomes than the US – Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – have significantly lower average IQs than the US or Europe, providing even more evidence that environmental factors like poverty fail to fully explain IQ differences (especially since Qatar has the lowest average IQ in the Middle East despite one of the highest incomes). India was further behind at 82. Sub-Saharan Africa came in last, with the highest ranking country being Uganda with an average IQ of 73, and the lowest being Equatorial Guinea with an average IQ of 59. An IQ of 70 or below is considered mentally handicapped in most of the developed world, meaning most sub-Saharan African countries have average IQs that would be considered mentally handicapped in the developed world. However, it should be noted that the accuracy of Lynn and Vanhanen’s work is far less certain than the accuracy of Murray’s work or Rushton and Jenson’s metastudy cited earlier, as some of these estimates were based on far more limited data, but even critics of their work found that sub-Saharan Africans had lower average IQs than other races and even American blacks.
Some of you may be wondering why, if American blacks faced a dysgenic environment during slavery, American blacks have an average IQ higher than that of sub-Saharan Africa. The fact that the average black American is almost 1/4 European likely explains a lot of that. It’s also been about 150 years since slavery was outlawed in the US, or about half a dozen generations, so there’s been plenty of time for change, and blacks have caught up somewhat in intelligence during that time. But how quickly can intelligence change under the right conditions? Can blacks catch up to whites? Can whites catch up to Jews and Orientals? Can Hispanics, Arabs, and Indians catch up?
Quite a bit of research has been done on how much IQ changes over time. There’s plenty of disagreement among researchers on how much intelligence has increased, whether it’s still increasing, and why intelligence has increased, but one thing most researchers agree on is that for most of the twentieth century, average intelligence improved. One of the first major studies on the subject, published by James Flynn in 1984, found that average IQs in the US had increased about 3 points per decade since 1932, and another of Flynn’s studies from 1987 found that similar gains had been made in most of the developed world, including Britain, France, Norway, Germany, Australia, Canada, and Japan. Another more recent study headed by Lisa Trahan in 2014 found that IQ in the US and UK continued to increase by about 3 points a decade, and that the rate of improvement had been consistent since 1951. However, many studies paint a bleaker picture of the direction intelligence is heading. A study by Jakob Pietschnig and Georg Gittler in 2014 found that IQs in Germany rose during the last few decades of the 20th century but have been falling for the last 15 years or so, while an analysis of recent evidence led by Heiner Rindermann in 2016 found that IQ gains had declined (and in some cases IQ began to fall) in the UK, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Finland, and the US. While fewer studies have been done on IQ changes in the developing world, one study from Kenya found that IQs were rising in rural Kenya as living standards improved.
The lack of consensus among intelligence researchers makes it hard to draw solid conclusions, but one thing most researchers agree on is that the so called Flynn effect, for however long it was in effect, was primarily due to environmental changes rather than genetic changes. Academics who believe racial differences are primarily environmental and academics who believe racial differences are primarily genetic both agree that the Flynn effect is primarily due to rising living standards, including factors such as access to better education, more stimulating environments for children, and better nutrition. There is near universal agreement that the Flynn effect is not due to genetic changes, and some academics (especially those whose research points to the Flynn effect having ended in the developed world) believe that we are actually seeing a genetic decline in the developed world, where genes that promote higher intelligence are becoming less common, and that the Flynn effect has masked that dysgenic decline.
When it comes specifically to the racial gap in intelligence in the US, there is evidence that the intelligence gap between blacks and whites shrank by about 4-7 points between 1972 and 2002 according to James Flynn and William Dickens, though another study published the same year by Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen challenged that finding and showed that, while both blacks and whites in the US had seen IQ gains, the gap between their scores remained about the same. However, even assuming that the gap hasn’t narrowed at all, IQ gains among all groups in the US were significant enough that blacks in 1995 had the same average IQ as whites in 1945. Many studies on the Flynn effect have indicated that the biggest gains in intelligence from the Flynn effect are at the bottom end of the population in intelligence, as environmental factors that prevented intellectual development are removed, while the top of the population in intelligence showed little to no gain. If that’s the case, we should expect to see bigger gains among the black community in the US, who up until 50 years ago were legally discriminated against in some parts of the country and who were most likely to suffer from extremely poor living conditions prior to the existence of the modern welfare state. If the gap has narrowed, it simply confirms that the removal of these harmful environmental effects had a bigger impact on the people who were most likely to suffer from them, but does not challenge the idea of genetic differences in intelligence between American blacks and whites as American blacks at the high end of intellectual ability still don’t exist in the same proportion as whites, Jews, and Orientals despite the welfare state. If, however, the gap has not narrowed, that means that despite the fact that the Flynn effect should be affecting blacks more than whites, some other effect must be preventing their average IQ from catching up more, which strengthens the hypothesis that society is seeing a dysgenic effect on the distribution of genes for intelligence and even implies that blacks may be experiencing that effect worse than other races. If the welfare state is enabling the least intelligent members of the population to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than they did in previous generations, this could explain the dysgenic effect on our genes, and also explain why it is having a bigger effect on American blacks who are more likely to receive welfare than whites in the US, and why it is also affecting European countries with large welfare states.
Because of the difficulty in separating environmental effects on intelligence from genetic effects, it’s unfortunately very difficult to get an accurate idea of how much the genetic factors that affect intelligence can change from one generation to the next.
Part 3. Inequality and Genetic Differences
Income differences in the US closely match IQ differences. In the US, blacks have the second lowest average income of any racial group (ahead of only Hispanics, for whom language and immigration status likely the reason why they have lower incomes than blacks despite slightly higher average intelligence), while the Jews have the highest average income of any religious group in the US (it is unfortunately hard to find data on people who are ethnically, rather than religiously, Jewish).
Of the world’s 50 wealthiest people, 1 is Arab, 1 is Indian, 3 are Hispanic, 6 are Oriental, 10 are Jewish, and the remaining 29 are of non-Jewish European descent. Jews are heavily overrepresented among the world’s wealthiest relative to their percent of the world’s population, though this fact should hardly be surprising considering their IQs are significantly above average. Slightly more surprising is the relatively low number of Orientals on the list relative to their share of the world population, but while only 3 of China’s 1.4 billion people made the list, 2 of Hong Kong’s 7 million people are among the world’s 50 richest, so it’s likely that China’s pseudo-communist economic system is keeping their numbers down. A bit more surprising is the lone Japanese billionaire and lack of South Korean billionaires in the top 50, though this may have something to do with cultural differences as both Japan and South Korea are among the top 50 nations in average annual earnings. Two of the three Hispanics are from Brazil and the third is from Mexico. Mexico’s estimated average IQ of 90 is the highest in Latin America while Brazil’s 87 is above average for Latin America, and Brazil has the largest Latin American population, almost twice Mexico’s. The Arab world’s lone entry is the Saudi prince, whose money comes largely from oil wealth. The lack of African or African American members of the world’s wealthiest is also unsurprising considering their average IQs, and overall the list of the world’s wealthiest comes close to matching the racial distribution of the world’s most intelligent people once you adjust for the fact that more capitalist countries tend to have higher concentrations of wealth.
Similarly, the list of average GDP per capita is topped largely by European countries. Israel, surprisingly, comes in at only 55th on the list, though this includes the Palestinian population as part of Israel and Israel has many non-Ashkenazi Jews (of Middle Eastern or African, rather than European, descent) who didn’t go through the same harsh selection that the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe went through for centuries, which may explain why their average income is so low. Also high on the list are a few oil rich Middle Eastern countries, who exceed the income you would expect of them based on their IQs due to a large supply of the most valuable resource in our modern economy. Singapore and Hong Kong, with average IQs of 108, are 7th and 19th respectively, while Japan and South Korea, with average IQs of 105-6, are 44th and 46th. Taiwan, with a genetically similar population to that of China, is 27th. The Oriental countries, with the exception of North Korea at 213th out of 230 countries, all have above average GDPs per capita, while communism seems to have held North Korea back considerably. China is still recovering from communism, but at 112th they have the highest per capita GDP of any remaining communist country. The 26 countries that rank below North Korea are all African nations with the exception of Tokelau, a tiny island nation near Australia with a population genetically similar to Australia’s Aboriginals, whose average IQ is about as low as those of sub-Saharan Africans. India comes in at 158, somewhat below average, as would be expected from their average IQ. The wealthiest Latin American country, Chile, is 79th in GDP per capita and tied with Mexico for the highest average IQ in Latin America.
Overall, the capitalist world appears to distribute wealth according to intellectual ability. If whites are benefiting from unfair discrimination, it is just as likely that the Jews, with their disproportionate number of billionaires, are also benefiting from nepotism or some form of group selection bias, and that still doesn’t explain why Asians are able to out-earn whites in the white majority US despite not having nearly as many people among the extremely wealthy and powerful as whites and Jews. The low average IQs among the oil rich Arab nations implies that wealth has less of an effect on IQ than IQ has on wealth. The capitalist Oriental countries do just slightly worse than expected based on their higher average IQs, but are still high on the list, and their lower average physical ability may explain some of the difference as whites with below average IQs can do heavier physical labor on average and potentially earn more for such work than low IQ Orientals. The dominance of Europeans and their descendants in the rest of the world is probably not due strictly to their high IQs, but to having the best balance between intelligence and physical ability. While Africans have greater average physical ability and Orientals have greater average mental ability, Europeans whose average intellectual and physical ability are both just a bit above the world average would have the highest concentration of people who have both significant physical and mental ability, as well as having a more diverse population within their race, with large numbers of people who are capable of doing both heavy physical labor and intellectually intensive work.
But while the market seems to be very meritocratic, this doesn’t mean every aspect of life is. Income inequality is only one of the many claims of oppression made by the social justice left. The US has the highest prison population in the world, and blacks make up a disproportionately high portion of the prison population relative to the general population. How much of this is due to differences in behavior between blacks and whites, and how much is due to racial discrimination? The answers to that are a bit mixed.
It’s true that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. In 2006, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were reported for committing crimes at disproportionately higher rates than whites (for some reason, more recent versions of their criminal victimization survey have not included offender characteristics). The US was approximately 67% white and 12% black in 2006, but among violent crime offenders, 31.7% of victims reported a black offender, while 52.6% reported a white offender. As this is based on reports from victims, not from arrest rates or convictions, these numbers are unaffected by any bias in our criminal justice system. Comparing this to arrest rates for 2006 is a bit difficult as the most comprehensive source of arrest rate data, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, does not separate Hispanics and instead counts them as either white or black depending on skin tone. However, the arrest rate ratios between whites and blacks are similar to the rates at which they were reported for crimes. Overall, 1.66 times as many whites as blacks were reported by victims as having committed violent crimes in 2006 and 1.62 times as many whites as blacks were arrested for those categories of violent crimes in 2006 while there were 5.58 times as many whites as blacks in the US that year. For rape and sexual assault, there were 2.73 times as many whites reported as blacks, and 2.70 times as many whites arrested as blacks. For robbery, 1.25 times as many blacks were reported as whites (and blacks were even more likely to have injured their victim relative to whites), and 1.33 times as many blacks were arrested for robbery as whites. For aggravated assault, victims reported 2.33 times as many committed by whites, while 1.83 times as many whites were arrested. Aggravated assault is the only category of violent crime with a large difference in the ratios between reported crimes and arrests, which may have been affected by the severity of the assaults as the average black person is physically stronger than the average white person and therefore capable of doing more physical damage in a fight. There were about 3 times as many crimes reported according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics as arrests for those categories of crime according to the FBI data (and that ratio was similar for each type of crime), so the police were showing similar levels of discretion in deciding whether or not to arrest white and black suspects. If there is racism in our criminal justice system, it doesn’t appear to be present in police enforcement of violent crime.
That said, there are other areas where discrimination does appear to exist. Multiple studies have found significant race based disparities in holding suspects in custody before trial, conviction rates, and sentencing. However, each of these studies included sentencing for violent crimes and non-violent crimes, and in each case the sentencing disparity was considerably larger for drug crimes than the overall level of sentencing disparity. And while arrest rates for violent crimes closely match the rate at which they’re reported by their victims, drug users generally aren’t reported to the police because drug use is a victimless crime. In 2006, 9.8% of blacks and 8.5% of whites were current drug users, making blacks about 15% more likely to use drugs than whites, so there were 4.85 times as many total white drug users as black drug users, while there were only 1.81 times as many whites arrested for drug crimes as blacks. This makes the average black drug user about 2.68 times as likely to get arrested for a drug crime as the average white drug user, a far bigger disparity than in any category of violent crime.
It will be hard for some people on both the left and the right to accept that there is no racial discrimination in enforcement of violent crimes, and that blacks are more likely to be arrested for violent crimes entirely because they commit more violent crimes, while at the same time recognizing that blacks are only barely more likely to use drugs than whites and far more likely to get arrested for drug crimes even after adjusting for those differences, showing significant racial bias in enforcement of drug crimes. How is it possible that there is so much racism in enforcement of drug crimes, but none in enforcement of violent crimes? The biggest cause is likely due to the nature of the crimes and how they’re enforced – for violent crimes, a victim reports a suspect to the police, and the police attempt to arrest that specific suspect if they deem the charges valid. For victimless crimes, nearly nobody is reporting to the police. Rather than waiting for a crime to occur and then arresting the perpetrator as they do with violent crime, the police must go out looking for drug users to arrest, which leaves far more room for personal bias to affect their decisions. If the police making these arrests are, in many cases, the same police seeing black perpetrators being reported for violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, of course their personal bias is going to lead them to specifically search blacks (especially those who appear to have a higher chance of committing violent crimes), resulting in more blacks being caught with drugs than whites.
While many in the alt right would applaud this strategy and claim it’s justified based on the higher rates of violence among blacks, there is an evolutionary risk in such strategies that must be recognized. Consider gun control violations, another victimless crime. According to the FBI, just over 40% of people arrested for gun control violations are black, even higher than the rates for drug crimes and most violent crimes. Blacks in the US are about half as likely as whites to own guns, possibly because they are so much more likely to get arrested for owning a gun, and both these things are at least partially because many cities with large black populations, such as Chicago, have stricter gun control laws passed by the Democrats that blacks overwhelmingly vote for. If the differences in crime between blacks and whites are any indication, these gun control laws have done nothing to reduce crime in the black community. But consider for a moment that whites in the US (and Europe) have been defending themselves with guns for centuries, removing the most violent and criminal portions of their population by force and making it more difficult for criminals to survive in their communities. Meanwhile, American blacks have had limited access to firearms for most of the post slavery period, as southern states passed the first gun control laws to prevent blacks from owning guns, and today Democrats have convinced blacks to vote for stricter gun control laws in their own communities. These laws primarily prevent innocent people from owning guns, while criminals are still able to get firearms on the black market, making it harder for the more responsible members of the black community to clean up their communities and making it easier for criminals to survive in their communities. The evolutionary effect of these policies has been to prevent the black community from removing the members of their communities with traits that make them more likely to become criminal. Environments shape the genes of each generation, so policies that make it easier for people with criminal traits to survive in one community relative to another can prevent that community from becoming less criminal and catching up to the less criminal white community.
But the analysis of crime and violence has so far only looked at the US and at two racial groups (one of which is significantly mixed). How do things look internationally, when all races are considered? The UN’s data on international homicide rates is the best tool, as definitions of homicide are similar across countries while many other violent crimes are defined very differently from one country to the next (consider the difficulty of comparing rape statistics between Muslim majority countries where victims are almost as likely to be punished as perpetrators against developed nations where rape is more likely to be punished). According to the UN’s numbers, Orientals (excluding Mongolians due to their lower average IQs and genetic dissimilarities from other Oriental groups, but including Singapore due to their similarly high IQs) have the lowest average murder rate at 0.74 per 100,000 people. The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland) have a slightly higher murder rate of 0.95 per 100,000 and the primarily Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Italic nations of Western Europe have an average of 0.97 per 100,000, while the Finnic countries of northeast Europe average 3.28 murders per 100,000 and the Slavic countries of eastern Europe average 7.29 murders per 100,000 people (though Russia heavily skews this; without Russia, their average is 2.38 per 100,000). Russia’s high murder rate may be due partly to having one of the lowest average incomes in Europe, one of the lowest average IQs in Europe at 97, and higher rates of environmental pollutants such as lead which affect both IQ and tendency for violence. Finland is among the top 50 nations in GDP per capita, above the EU average and just below the UK and France, and the other Finnic countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) are in the top 75, above a few European countries with lower average murder rates, so their higher murder rate may be due to genetic factors as it doesn’t seem to be strictly due to poverty or economic/environmental reasons (Russia is also 1/4 Finnic and about half Slavic with very little of the racial groups that dominate western Europe and make up a significant minority of the Nordic countries and most other Slavic countries). For all of Europe excluding Russia and the Finnic countries, the average murder rate is 1.33 per 100,000. The fact that western Europe has some of the lowest crime rates in the world despite having conquered most of it is a testament to their adaptability.
India has a murder rate of 3.21 per 100,000. With an average IQ of 82 and a rank of 158th out of 230 countries in GDP per capita, India’s murder rate is incredibly low relative to other low IQ and low income countries. The other nations of the Indian subcontinent (Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka) have even lower murder rates, averaging 2.48 murders per 100,000 despite slightly lower average IQs and similar GDPs per capita. The Hindu caste system and the unique effect it had on the evolution of India’s people seems to have shaped them into a relatively peaceful race, but a relatively unintelligent one as well.
The Arab and Persian nations of the Middle East (excluding Israel) averaged a higher 5.09 murders per 100,000. Qatar had the highest murder rate at 8.10 per 100,000 people despite being one of the few Middle Eastern countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US. Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen were also above average, so the war on terror and American military intervention may be having an effect on their rates of violence, but Syria’s murder rate was below average. The predominantly Muslim countries of North Africa, who genetically are a mix of ancient North Africans, Arabs, and Europeans due to conquests by Rome and the Muslims, as well as Mediterranean trade and immigration, had a lower murder rate of 2.92 per 100,000 people, while East Africans, who are closer to sub-Saharan Africans but with some Arab and North African mixed in, averaged 6.11 murders per 100,000.
Sub-Saharan Africa has a higher average murder rate of 11.14 murders per 100,000 people. The highest murder rates in sub-Saharan Africa were in South Africa and Lesotho (34.27 and 38.00 per 100,000 respectively), where racial tensions between the native African population and the large white colonial population may be one of the driving factors behind their high murder rates. However, even without those countries, southern Africa has a higher murder rate than central Africa, which has a higher murder rate than west Africa, which has a higher murder rate than east or north Africa. It appears the further each country is from Europe and the Middle East, and the less pre-colonial contact each country had with the civilized nations of Europe and the Middle East, the more violent they are.
Latin America, despite the large amount of European DNA among its people, has a much higher average murder rate at 22.66 per 100,000 people. Chile had the lowest murder rate among Latin American nations at 3.59 per 100,000 while Venezuela had the highest among South American nations at 57.15 per 100,000, facts which I’m sure will make any alt right or alt lite reader lament that we need a Pinochet (though Honduras and El Salvador in Central America amazingly had higher murder rates than Venezuela). Mexico, who tied with Chile for top IQ in Latin America, has a higher average murder rate than Chile at 16.35 per 100,000, but this may be partly due to the effects of the war on drugs, and their murder rate is still below the Latin American average. The Caribbean, with its similarly racially mixed population, had an average murder rate of 13.75 per 100,000 people. Overall, Latin America and the Caribbean have surprisingly high murder rates, considerably higher than those of Africa despite Africans having lower average IQs and GDPs per capita. While Venezuela’s high murder rate is likely due to their rapidly failing socialist system, and Mexico and Colombia’s high murder rates can be blamed at least partially on the war on drugs, but about 40-50% of Mexico’s murders are due to organized crime, and even if we reduced all of Latin America’s murder rate by that amount, it would still be about as high as sub-Saharan Africa. Is their violence genetic? Is this the legacy of the incredibly violent Aztecs and Incas? While Latin Americans have significant amounts of European DNA, they also have a significant amount of African and Native American DNA. If Africans tend to be more violent the further their ancestors were from the civilizations of Eurasia, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that native Americans, whose civilizations were no more advanced than those of ancient sub-Saharan Africa and thousands of years behind most of Eurasia at the time the first European colonists arrived, would have been even further removed from the evolutionary effects of modern civilization.
As one final piece of evidence that violent tendencies are at least partially genetic, a Swedish study on the different rates of violence between different immigrant groups found a similar distribution of violent tendencies between different racial immigrant groups. Sub-Saharan African immigrants had the highest rates of violent crime, about 4.3 times as high as the crime rates of native Swedes. Middle Eastern, North African, and East African immigrants had crime rates 2.5-3.7 times as high as native Swedes. South and Central Americans had crime rates 2.2-2.3 times as high as native Swedes. Orientals, Americans, Canadians, and Australians had crime rates that were barely different from native Swedes. The relatively higher rates of violence by migrants from the Islamic world relative to the violence in their home countries and relatively lower rates of violence by migrants from Latin America may be partly due to selection bias, as African and Middle Eastern immigrants were more likely to be refugees of low social and economic status while immigrants from Latin America were more likely to move for work, and may be partly due to religious violence from Muslims. But the fact that even Sweden, with its vast welfare state and pro-immigrant culture, still sees large differences in violence between immigrants from more violent and low IQ countries implies that these differences have at least as much to do with genetics as they do with poverty or intolerance as many on the left like to claim.
There is one more form of inequality between racial groups that we must examine before moving on, one that is not based on the genetic heritage each of us inherited from our ancestors, but to the genetic legacy we leave to future generations. Birth rates are also currently very unequal by race. Orientals currently have the lowest average birth rate at 1.56 births per woman according to the World Bank. Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea, with the highest average IQs in the world, have the lowest birth rate at 1.2 births per woman. Europe has slightly higher birthrates, averaging 1.65 births per woman in western Europe and 1.64 in the Finnic and Slavic countries of eastern Europe (including Russia). France has the highest birth rate in the region at 2 births per woman, though France also has a relatively large immigrant population (particularly from the Islamic world) who have higher birth rates than the native French population. Latin America has a higher birth rate at 2.09 births per woman, a rate that seems surprisingly low considering their high murder rates, but Chile has the lowest birth rate at 1.7 births per woman as well as the lowest murder rate. India has a birth rate of 2.4 births per woman while the rest of the Indian subcontinent is slightly lower at 2.11 births per woman. The Middle East has a considerably higher birth rate of 3.02 per woman. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have the highest birth rates, while the wealthier nations of Kuwait, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates are all well below average for the region (though all three have higher birth rates than nearly every European and Oriental country), so wealth appears to limit birth rates in the Middle East while the instability of the war on terror seems to increase birth rates. North Africa is slightly higher with an average of 3.18 births per woman. Sudan and Egypt have the highest birth rates in the region, possibly a byproduct of their recent instability. Most of rest of Africa has even higher birth rates. East Africa averages 4.77 births per woman, west Africa averages 5.41 births per woman, and central Africa 5.61 births per woman, but southern Africa surprisingly averages only 2.41 births per woman.
While wealth and high IQs appear to significantly reduce birth rates, low IQs don’t uniformly increase birth rates, though they do appear to have an effect. Military strife appears to increase birth rates, but the high murder rates of southern Africa and Latin America seem to have the opposite effect, keeping birth rates lower than would be expected based on their relative wealth and IQs. It seems that war and murder trigger very different instinctive reactions in people when it comes to reproduction. Conflict with an external foe (whether it be a foreign invader or simply another tribe or political group within the same country) seems to trigger higher birth rates, a sensible evolutionary response to replace the people lost in war, but murders seem to only trigger this effect up to a certain point while having the opposite effect on populations with extremely high murder rates.
It takes at least 2 births per woman (and usually a bit more, depending on death rates) to maintain a stable population. Multiple Oriental and European countries have shrinking populations, while the rest are seeing slow growth due to aging and immigration. Meanwhile, Latin America is seeing slightly higher growth as stable birth rates and aging more than make up for their high murder rate, while India is experiencing moderate growth and most of the Middle East and Africa have rapid population growth, where births more than make up for the higher rates of violence in their societies. The most intelligent races have managed to create systems that are causing their populations to shrink and, especially for whites, be replaced by foreign populations with higher birth rates and lower IQs.
Part 4. Our Evolutionary Future
Arguably the most underrated challenge facing humanity over the coming decades is the loss if its most intellectual populations. Will technology continue to advance at the rapid pace it’s advanced at for the past century when the smartest populations have fewer working age people slaving away to take care of their growing elderly populations and the growing numbers of people of less intelligent races, many of whom are incapable of providing for themselves? Even with advances in automation, these demographic shifts will only increase the need for more service jobs to care for people who can’t care for themselves.
Many on the left would argue that the shrinking populations of whites and Orientals are a good thing. Gloria Steinem, Bill Nye, The Guardian, and many other left leaning celebrities, politicians, and publications have called for reducing birth rates as part of the solution to climate change, focusing especially on lowering birth rates in the industrialized nations that consume the most per person. But how can birth rates be the problem if the industrialized nations already have birth rates below replacement rates? Population growth in these countries is primarily due to aging and immigration, not births. Many of these same people call for more open immigration and refugee resettlement from countries with higher birthrates, and they support massive welfare programs that ensure each of these immigrants will be able to consume just as much as the average European or American (fortunately, their pro-immigration arguments have not yet caught on in the Oriental countries). Shouldn’t their focus be on dismantling the welfare state that enables people to consume more than they contribute to our ability to produce things sustainably, and on either reducing immigration from countries with high birth rates to contain the problem of population growth, ending foreign aid to countries with high population growth, or reducing birth rates in countries with high birth rates? And won’t low IQ, less educated immigrants be less capable on average of doing the complex and difficult jobs needed to solve climate change? As the non-working elderly and the lowest IQ populations grow the most rapidly, increasing the burden placed on our most capable workers, won’t that create major obstacles to solving climate change and make things far more difficult for the working age Europeans, Orientals, and Americans we’re expecting to rebuild our energy infrastructure? And even if we could somehow improve the economies of poor nations and bring their people out of poverty, wouldn’t that also increase the amount they consume and make it harder to solve climate change? But unfortunately, the right’s rejection of climate change and other environmental problems like wildlife loss and habitat destruction (both of which are primarily caused by food production, so the third world’s share of that problem is growing rapidly) prevents them from adequately challenging the left on these issues.
Many on the left claim that the primary reason for higher population growth in these low IQ countries is poverty and its effects (such as higher infant mortality rates), but as with IQ, while there is certainly some truth to this, it is insufficient to fully explain the differences that exist. Wealthy Middle Eastern countries are outbreeding less wealthy countries in Europe and east Asia. Indians and Hispanics are reproducing more slowly than Arabs despite their higher poverty rates. It also ignores the effects their own violent choices have on their need for higher birth rates. While many on the left would argue that violence in the third world is due in part to the way colonialism divided up their countries based on their conquerors, dividing up tribes between multiple nations and putting competing tribes in the same nation, that argument doesn’t work to explain the higher rates of violence in Latin America, whose people freed themselves through revolutions and who rarely associate themselves with their ancestors’ tribal identities. It also ignores the strong possibility that these countries have higher birth rates and violence because they’re practicing a different evolutionary strategy than Europe and the Orient. If Africa sees themselves as being behind the west and needing to catch up, especially if they see themselves as being behind genetically, it would make sense from an evolutionary perspective for them to increase their birth rates while using higher rates of violence to kill off the least capable and adaptable portion of their population to increase the rate at which natural selection improves them so they can catch up. The Middle East may be doing this to a slightly lesser extent as well, while India, with its inward looking culture that changed very little during British colonization, may simply be ignoring the rest of the world, and Latin America, with its partially European population and extremely high rates of violence but average birth rates, may see more of a need to refine and purify its highly diverse population, and less of a need to increase the odds of new mutations that Africans likely feel more of a need for. When the left calls for more foreign aid to save the lives of people in third world countries with high death rates, what they often fail to realize is that they’re getting in the way of the local people’s right to pursue their own evolutionary strategy and do what they need to do to catch up to the rest of the world. So does immigration, which more often than not relocates the most capable and intelligent people from their societies to countries that already have a higher average capability, robbing them of the people they most need to advance and catch up. By interfering with their right to do what’s necessary for their evolution, well meaning but misguided leftists are preventing the races from becoming more equally capable through evolution. And what right could be more fundamental than a people’s right to evolve, as our ancestors have done for nearly 4 billion years? Far from being a way to improve the lives of underprivileged people around the world, the left’s strategy works far better as a subversive strategy to keep people of other races stupid and poor so they can never be a threat to the more intelligent races.
Overall, the social justice left gets far more wrong than the alt right, and their strategy is only viable if we don’t take it at face value and assume the goal of white social justice warriors is in fact the preservation of their racial advantage over other races. The mental gymnastics they go through to define racism and prejudice in such a way that only whites are capable of it while socially ostracizing any whites who can’t clear the increasingly high bar needed to be considered unproblematic while giving a free pass to far worse behavior from nonwhites has created an extreme double standard, one which is highly selective of whites on the basis of linguistic intelligence but barely selective at all of members of other races. If this difference in selectivity has an effect on our evolution, it will almost certainly be in the opposite direction of the racial equality the social justice left claims to strive for. Instead, the social justice left appears to be trying to make whites more closely mimic the Jews, turning us into a highly verbally intelligent racial minority in the upper echelons of society, looking down on the lesser races and offering patronizing platitudes to their faces while conspiring to keep them weak and inferior behind their backs. Nearly every evil the alt right sees in the Jews is far more real in the average white social justice warrior than in the average Jew. If they are sincere in their beliefs, then their beliefs are so out of touch with evolutionary reality, both in their lack of recognition of the basic biological facts of evolutionary differences between different racial groups and genetic heritages and their ignorance of how evolution continues to affect humanity, that their ideology is pointless at best and harmful to their own stated goals at worst, and their inconsistencies prevent them from noticing that most of the immigrants from the Islamic world that they want to welcome into the west don’t share their feminist beliefs, religious tolerance, or support for lgbt rights. Their disdain for western civilization ignores the fact that western civilization has come as close as possible to creating the egalitarian society they claim to want. Their claims of racial oppression and privilege largely ignore the reality that whites and Orientals can’t afford to reproduce at replacement rates. Whose people are facing a bigger threat to their long term survival, the white race that’s rapidly shrinking as a percent of the US population while reproducing at less than replacement rates as they’re forced to pay for the care of people who reproduce faster than they do, or the blacks and Hispanics who are growing as a percent of the population and receiving more wealth than they earn due to wealth redistribution? Even in the places where real racial discrimination does exist in the west, such as enforcement of drug laws and gun control laws, the left is at least as responsible for perpetuating these problems as the right, almost as if their loud proclamations about privilege and oppression were designed to distract from the real causes of these problems, rather than solve them.
Meanwhile, the alt right’s strategy is far more evolutionarily viable at face value, though not necessarily optimal. They mostly recognize the proven differences between the races, and while they have a tendency to ignore the few sources of legitimate discrimination that exist, the facts are more on their side than the social justice left’s. In terms of their strategy, caring primarily about the survival of those who share your genes and traits (whether they care about the survival of people of their specific nationality, all whites/Europeans, or people of high IQ and ability generally) is good for your survival, though the more hyper-nationalist parts of the alt right are prone to the risk of purity spiraling and causing the buildup of harmful recessive genes if they completely cut off immigration, and the welfare statism and socialist tendencies of the national socialists in their movement (like Richard Spencer) run the risk of creating a dysgenic society that encourages the survival of the worst traits among their population and worsening the demographic problems of aging that are weighing down the wealthier and high IQ nations, making it harder for them to afford to produce enough offspring to maintain their population size long term. But even if their mistakes have the potential to further the slow decline of their people, it will at least be a slower rate of decline than the left’s open immigration policies to violent, lower IQ countries with higher birth rates, and even if an alt right ethnostate wouldn’t be as eugenic as a meritocracy that promotes the reproduction of all people with useful traits regardless of race, they are at least defending the survival of a race with a good combination of useful traits and the more diverse array of abilities of any race. They are far better, if imperfect, defenders of western civilization than the social justice left, who would just as soon watch western civilization burn to spite the whites and Christians who built the most egalitarian and tolerant societies in history, and are at least concerned about the dysgenic demographic decline humanity is facing, even if they don’t yet have a perfect solution to the problem.
Thankfully, the social justice left and alt right are not our only options (nor are the religious right and mainstream left, who are even more hypocritical, corrupt, and broken in many ways than these upstart movements). Our evolutionary universe gives us many options, some of which are clearly better than others, others of which are better at achieving certain goals and worse at achieving others. If we wish to create a more racially equal world, how would we go about it?
Perhaps Chile can provide an example. Despite the fact that, by most estimates, the average citizen of Chile is only about 52-65% European, less than the average Hispanic person in the US and similar to most of their neighbors (though somewhat less African and more native American than most of their neighbors), Chile has achieved high average IQs, high average incomes, and the lowest crime rate in Latin America. In 1970, prior to Augosto Pinochet’s military coup in 1973, Chile’s GDP per capita was below that of Argentina and Venezuela (who they are now well ahead of) and less than 1/3 that of the Bahamas (who today have about equal GDP with Chile), though Chile was already above average for Latin America as a whole. Then, in 1973, Augusto Pinochet executed a military coup and took over the country (with help from the US). Pinochet killed, imprisoned, and exiled thousands of his political opponents, primarily communists, socialists, and other left wing and lower class dissidents, as well as taking harsher stances towards violent crime. By creating a more meritocratic market and making it harder for criminals and the least productive members of Chile’s population to survive, he created a eugenic environment that encouraged the survival and propagation of the genes of the best members of Chilean society at the expense of the worst (as well as causing plenty of economic growth). While Pinochet is certainly not the only reason for Chile’s current success, his reforms played a large part in it.
If other nations and peoples of below average ability follow this example, perhaps they too can catch up to the nations of Europe and the Orient. Encouraging the more intelligent races to reproduce more and immigrate to lower IQ countries, rather than taking immigrants from those countries, could help as well, and China has tens of millions more young men than young women who could be sent to Africa and elsewhere to find wives and improve the local population’s average IQ. Even if we wish to take a race neutral approach to the problem, a program that removes the bottom 5% of the US or world population in intelligence from the gene pool each generation (not necessarily by killing them; sterilizing them and then letting them live otherwise normal lives would work too), for the first few generations it would disproportionately affect the races with the lowest average intelligence. As it does so, it would bring up the average intelligence of those races, as the 9% of American blacks who are smarter than the average white person would be a much larger portion of the American blacks who are able to reproduce and pass on their genes under such a system. As the frequency of genes for lower intelligence drops while the frequency of genes for higher intelligence rises more quickly among the least intelligent races while the more intelligent races remain largely unaffected by such policies, the average intelligence of the less intelligent races would rise far more rapidly, and the gap between the races would close more and more with each passing generation. While many people think of eugenics as an inherently white supremacist idea, there’s no reason why other races can’t use it for their own benefit, just as whites used early eugenics programs to improve their genes a century ago (and as our understanding of genetics and evolution improves, our ability to improve ourselves through eugenics will only get better). After all, if there’s any way in which all of us are equal, it’s in the fact that we are all subject to the same scientific laws of reality, including the law of natural selection.
Such a strategy may seem brutal or cruel, but is it really? Compared to the already high rates of violent crime in the American black community, Africa, and the Middle East, would sterilization of the least intelligent members of their communities really be any more brutal or cruel than what they’re doing to each other already? If it creates a world where Africans, Hispanics, and American blacks no longer have to live in violence and poverty, doesn’t that make up for it? And is it really any more cruel than the natural world, where organisms have been slaughtering each other for food and survival for nearly four billion years? The fact that this seems cruel to many living in the most developed countries is a truer sign of their privilege than anything the social justice left can point to.
But this assumes both that we can significantly change the genetic makeuip of a population in just a few generations through selective breeding and that racial equality should be our goal. It doesn’t have to be. If racial differences are real, what’s wrong with recognizing those differences for what they are? What’s wrong with letting Africans and Arabs specialize in manual labor and resource extraction jobs with high physical requirements but low intellectual requirements, while Jews and Orientals specialize in highly intellectual jobs with low physical requirements (and, in the case of the Orientals, jobs that require more manual dexterity than physical strength)? What’s wrong with Africans trading their rich natural resources to the west for high tech products and newly researched medical advancements that they wouldn’t have been able to produce on their own, if it leaves them better off than they would have been on their own? Just because the results are racially unequal doesn’t mean they’re unfair when those outcomes are based on their abilities, nor is it harmful if they end up better off than they would have been otherwise. There’s no more reason to try to make unequal people equal than there is to accept their inequality.
Accepting and dealing with people’s inequality can mean many different things as well. Separate ethnostates that each specialize in their own people’s unique set of skills are an option. So is a society with multiple classes or castes based on either ethnic group or ability, where each group specializes in certain skills. If the US is going to be a diverse country, why shouldn’t blacks with higher average physical ability do most of the manual labor jobs, while Jews do linguistic and media jobs, Orientals handle math heavy science and engineering jobs, and whites and Hispanics fill in the rest? There is certainly the risk that if such a system is made too rigid, it could end up with the flaws of India’s caste system which, though it civilized their people and made them less violent than Africans, Native Americans, and even Arabs, did not do much for their intellectual development. But in many ways the Jews and non-Jewish whites had a similar system in Europe for centuries, where the Jews ran most international trade and some highly technical occupations, sometimes pulling highly skilled people into their ethnic group through marriage, while non-Jewish whites ran the rest of society. This loose caste system largely worked out to the benefit of both races, despite their sometimes violent spats of jealousy. But there are valid reasons to be wary of such a system as well. If the upper castes become too separated from the rest of society and no longer see their interests as being aligned, it leads to manipulation and exploitation. There’s also the question of whether the relatively nonviolent Europeans, Orientals, and Jews should have to live in close proximity to the far more violent Arabs, Africans, and Hispanics. The benefits of a multi-ethnic society with a more diverse array of skills will likely benefit the least capable races most by giving them access to the goods and services produced by the more intellectual races, while the more violent races will incur more harm on the less violent races. It’s not surprising that a growing number of Europeans and white Americans are starting to question the benefits of their multicultural societies as they see increasing Islamic terror attacks in Europe and the frequency of black on white crime increasing with the growth of the black community relative to the white community in the US. If the more civilized and less violent races have to put up with the more violent races, shouldn’t it be because they chose to move to poorer and more violent countries and improve them, rather than by allowing violent people to move into the US and Europe and outbreed whites in their own countries?
Evolution presents us with many different options for how to survive, and there are infinite combinations of the many viable survival strategies. There’s no reason for us to limit ourselves to any one strategy. We can recognize that inequality is often due to differences between people but still fix unfair bias where it can be proven to exist. We can recognize that different races are different on average and understand why people of different races tend to attain different levels of education, pursue different jobs, and receive different incomes, while still respecting differences the portion of people who defy the averages of their race. We can recognize that different groups can be both dangerous and useful in their own ways and react accordingly. We can respect the contributions of people who are different than us while still working to further the interests of our own people, just as people of other groups use different strategies to further their own interests. We can attempt to balance our respect for the diverse variety of life that we rely on for our survival against the need to selectively favor those who share our genes, just as people have been doing for all of human history and as all life has been doing for nearly four billion years. Why change now?
Author: Atheist Jesus
I’d prefer to use the pen name Atheist Jesus. Here’s my bio:
Atheist Jesus is an evolutionist who supports a rational, open minded, science and evolution based view of political, economic, and social issues. He has a political science degree and is currently trying to save the world from both the coming ecopocalypse and the dysgenic demographic decline of the west. You can view his youtube channel here and also writes for The Attestor. You can find his shirt store here or contribute to him via Patreon. You can also send Paypal donations and prayers to firstname.lastname@example.org.