Cofnas’ whole “So I’m a racist just because I think IQ is heritable?” routine irks me. He’s a racist because he believes people should value people of their own race more than others and that races shouldn’t mix. That has nothing to do with his empirical views.
“A race is like an extended family (although you’ll probably be disappointed if you expect your racial brethren to treat you that way), and it’s natural to care about the fate of your people. Our physical and psychological nature reflects our racial heritage, and for partly biological reasons we may feel a connection to our cultural traditions. Those who truly value diversity should favor the preservation of racial distinctions. There must be some barriers set up between races in order for each one to express its own unique genius. And in the case of group conflict, racial tribalism can sometimes be the key to solving collective-action problems. If whites are attacked qua whites, it makes sense for them to fight back as whites.” I think even charitably construed, this is a racist view.
"I feel no need to quarantine myself from nonwhites (or non-Jews). And the historical record suggests that white nationalism is invariably expressed mainly as negativity toward other races and perceived enemies within the “white” race, which is not something I find attractive. A generation of Internet white nationalists has produced tens of millions of pieces of racist online content, but zero great works of music, art, or literature, and a relatively small amount of high-quality scientific analysis. Despite their claimed love of classical music, there isn’t a single well-known, white-nationalist classical performer, let alone composer. This is not the community that is carrying the torch of Western civilization, as I understand it."
I think the balanced, not particularly charitable view of these two together is that certain forms of defensive, non-violent ethnocentrism can be benign while there is also an obvious risk of it becoming vicious and grotesque if it goes too far. One can of course be categorically hostile to any form of ethnonationalism no matter how mild, but this logically leads to one becoming a misanthrope as most people on this planet are somewhat ethnocentric.
I won’t speak in his place but if you’re implying that all this is irrelevant to public policy then we have quite a few harmful ones in place that are based on the incorrect blank slatist view:
-DEI & affirmative action
-softness on crime & de-policing following the BLM protests
-mass immigration to Europe (I agree with Richard that this isn’t a big deal in the US)
One can of course argue against these policies without talking about race, but to differing degrees these policies were implemented by appealing to “racial justice” on the other side. Get rid of this stuff and any claims of injustice based on statistical disparities among groups and I think many people will be fine with not talking about race and IQ.
So I agree with cutting all those programs, but I fail to see how they directly come from elites holding the idea of "blank slatism." Cofnas' main thrust is that he believes that if he can change the thinking of the elites to agree with him, and then they will all naturally support these policies.
Which is a fine idea, I suppose. I guess I can't really see myself going to bat for a thesis that is just meant to be a persuasion strategy.
The logic is roughly the following: Elites believe that group differences are environmental (i.e. something that is done to them) -> that is unjust -> must be rectified by DEI. Whether convincing the wider population of hereditarianism is the best way to get rid of DEI (and would on net be a good thing) is highly debatable, but this is the logical chain as Cofnas sees it.
Regarding hereditarianism, I think the main reason smart people should believe in it is simply because it is true. A lot of intelligent people believe some very wrong things due to them thinking group differences are caused exclusively by environmental factors. Sometimes this also leads to bad policies which we should combat, and knowing the truth can be useful for that. If your point is that no positive policy program is derived from knowing this I agree, the main benefits are having a more accurate view of the world & having the tools to discredit certain harmful policies that are currently in place.
In some sense that’s obviously true, but so is the whole human race. But you would be hard pressed to convince someone they should favor their sixth cousin over anyone else, or their 10th cousin over their 12th. It would be silly.
Does. In particular, the sentence of yours that I quoted is 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲. It is extremely easy to convince people to favor sixth cousins over strangers. It would be unsurprising for a culture to consider the opposite viewpoint gravely immoral.
I think I can piece together what you mean, and I’ll just say this: no good will come out of valuing people for their immutable traits, regardless of who’s doing it. If you can’t beat them, don’t join them.
Again, this is not an option in a nation with civil rights law. We already force everybody who works for the government, seeks an education, buys or sells real-estate, or who owns or works for a company with more than fourteen employees to consider race and sex in everything they do. And no good *has* come from it.
If you genuinely believed your own line of logic, you'd be fighting to *abolish* civil rights law.
what is the benefit of sticking tight with your own race? I grew up in very diverse, liberal and upper middle class American suburbs. Everyone made racist jokes, but, kids divide themselves on a million factors other than race(sometimes race too). why is race such an important distinction to you anyway?
In a truly colorblind meritocracy, none. But the U.S. is not and can never be a colorblind meritocracy for so long as our official line is that unequal outcomes are due to conspiracy by the overperformers, which is the ultimate logic of any system of race communism.
You will favor people of the basal population you share, ie. your subrace if we want to be specific, which is a well grounded concept scientifically and intuitively detectable. That's not to say they exist in pure form in large numbers anymore, but when your enemies come for you based on your race, you'll know more or less where you belong.
No. Of course not. Why would you think my acknowledgement that race is real means I don't support people's right to choose their own spouse?
For that matter, first-cousin marriage isn't banned in most of the U.S. It didn't need to be, since the practice has been stigmatized for so long most people don't even need to be told not to do it. It only became a serious problem again when we started importing people for whom the practice is normal, who refuse to assimilate to our ways. People whom also are the source of the vast majority of the practice's problems, since it really isn't a problem if it only happens once every few generations, but when it happens again and again, as such creates clans and breeds clannishness.
I read that article and was disappointed by this denouement. The question for him and all the other race theorists is, "What do you want to do?" for their public policies.
Cofnas weasels out by basically saying, hey, there's gonna be some racial solidarity, and some countries will have race(often arbitrarily designed) quotas, and that'll be good because its the natural will of the people 9(race?).
And he wonders why elites don't want to sign on to his program.
I wrote an article analyzing his whole essay, and that was one of my primary reactions as well. It starts out reasonable enough but then becomes this bizzarre mismash of unsubstantiated theories and vague prescriptions. I can’t think of any clearly useful policies that require increased attention to racial differences and apparently neither can he.
There's not a choice on this in a nation like the U.S., which mandates that race be considered at every level of society to correct inequality of outcome between races.
The only defense against this argument is that it's not true. Inequality of outcome is, in a free-market society, due to different temperaments, at both the level of groups and individuals.
I’ve seen statements like this throughout this thread, and I just don’t find them to be true. I can only draw so much from my own anecdotal experience but I don’t actually see this omnipresent systemic race salience at all. I’m aware it exists, but as a straight white male who is successful professionally and who works with people of various demographic backgrounds who are just as competent(oftentimes more) as me, I just can’t imagine it is this endemic problem that you describe. I believe it is a narrative, and like all narratives, its tend overemphasize its applicability and tend to see more evidence of it than those who aren’t looking for it. I’m not even saying I necessarily support race conscious laws(they at least need to be phased out eventually) but I just think their actual impact, for better or worse, is overstated.
The race-consciousness laws exist to equalize outcomes. Without admitting *why* they can't equalize outcomes, there can never be a justification for getting rid of them. There can only be justification for making them worse. *More* intrusive.
We chosen people are flexible race realists. So if someone converts kedat hahalacha, he/she could be married. On the other hand, getting a conversion kedat hahalacha is a tough selection process. See the story of Ruth and Orpah.
There's no reason to oppose voluntary race mixing. The issue is involuntary, mandatory race mixing, which is inseparable from civil rights law and the default assumption of cognitive equality between races. Either you believe in freedom of association and intellectual honesty or you don't.
I suppose there could be some other explanation for what he means by barriers between the races” but I don’t know how you would accomplish his goal of preserving distinct races without some level of anti-miscegenation.
As someone who generally agrees with Steve Sailer, I take Mr. Hanania's warnings seriously. But he too should be careful. When he writes, "We see in opposition to Indian immigration in particular that a lot of people just want to hate," he is being simplistic. "Hate" is among the most overused words of the censorious left, so it is disappointing to see him using it this way. It is possible, far short of hate, to generally not feel comfortable with certain types of people, to find their ways annoying and so forth. By writing of "hate" to clobber anti-immigrationists, Mr. Hanania takes the extreme case for the norm, which of course makes arguing against it much easier for him.
Can you explain why Indians immigrants to America, who have high IQ's, low crime rates, low illegitimacy rates, no cultural impact, and are net taxpayers happen to ignite such anger among immigration restrictions that doesn't include the word hate?
I thought my comment answered that question already. Have you never met anyone whose virtues or capabilities you respected but who just "rubbed you the wrong way"? Is your world divided into just two categories, Like and Hate? To me it seems the most obvious thing that there are all shades of like and dislike, that they may be independent of our conscious values, and that "hate" is for most of us a rare phenomenon at the tail end of the "dislike" category.
Where do you draw the line between dislike and hate? I see people posting slurs and cheering as people are separated from their kids and deported. Most of the ones doing it live in 90+% white areas. The most restrictionist regions have damn near no immigrants. Especially not Indians, who make tons of money
Hate is the correct word. The vitriol at Indians is so obviously unjustified.
Why does the degree of dislike matter? If someone is doing good, not harm, why shouldn't they be excluded?
Personally, I quite like Indians. I work with a lot of them and find them to be quite decent people, on the whole. Some I quite like, some I dislike -- they're people, so that's just inevitable.
His point is that you can use a thesaurus to find synonyms for hate. Thereby, one can avoid that particular buzzword. (That’s what the point comes down to, anyway.)
Do you mean my point, Garrett? If so, once again I must say I'm amazed at being misunderstood. I am all in favor of using "hate" when it means "hate". I don't like Pop-Tarts, but I don't hate them. Still astounded that Brandon above finds the distinction hard to grasp.
Individual can (and do) rub you the wrong way. The people Hanania is talking about dislike (see, I avoided using "hate") Indians regardless of any personal interactions they've had with individual Indians, and in many (perhaps most) cases have never had interactions with any individual Indians.
In fact, when one is exposed to social media (who isn't nowadays?), unflattering or unpleasant illustrations of Indians seems to trigger a general dislike of Indians among a section of the public, precisely because they look so unfamiliar. Pictures and nice-sounding arguments from the likes of Sailer have proven capability to be much more viral and relatable than hard statistics.
My last manager was a second generation Indian, and I saw no such behavior. He was basically "white". He happened to be a vegetarian, but so are a lot of liberal white men from San Francisco. But other than that he was essentially totally assimilated.
I don’t know the numbers; I am saying that is the perception among many who oppose Indian immigration. And by “ethnic nepotism” we can certainly include favoritism based on caste or region.
Isn’t the anti-Dalit thing a reason to oppose Indian immigration? I mean, we have enough stupidities in our culture; they are importing the caste system here? Is that really something we want?
The anti-Semites of 19th and early 20th century Europe had very similar "perceptions" about Jews, who seemed to dominate so many respectable and lucrative professions. You should ask yourself if perceptions ought to trump proof.
The Dalit thing is also a myth. There have been zero cases of proven anti-Dalit discrimination (i.e., via won lawsuits) in tech firms in the US. Such discriminaton is rare even in urban India in modern service industries. Anybody can allege any kind of discrimination if they wish, and there is a cottage industry of professional anti-discrimination activists who will cook up narratives based on real historical oppression (like the BLM "defund the police" types.)
You can control such behavior. Restricting the ability of pur country to secure high quality talent because their stupid tribal allegiances are a problem is absurd. Making our country poorer, as opposed to not promoting those who are likely to undermine the business is every bit as suicidally stupid as throwing open the doors and letting every 75IQ welfare parasite in.
This is a reasonable argument, but it's a bit like someone in the Middle Ages saying 'over time cultural mores have changed and what was taboo is celebrated and vice versa, but the Trinity remains the ultimate taboo, must be something off about Trinity opponents'. And, in truth, there usually was something weird about people who denied the Trinity because heretics are messed up dysfunctional people almost by definition.
Medieval Europeans would *definitely* say you were/are. And so would Europeans for many centuries after that.
Your crime, of course, was not just being heretics but being highly *competent* heretics, entirely too successful in business. The key was to stay poor and downtrodden so you could be looked down upon, thereby proving that god was favoring proper Christians. But, no, you just couldn't keep from showing off :P
I suppose they mostly brought it on themselves, by forcing you to be bankers. If you want a people to be financially unsuccessful, that's not the profession you should box them into.
Staying poor is no salvation - look at the gypsies. Lots of European ones landed in the gas chambers.
In the mean time, we developed Kabbala and Chassidut, reestablished the state of Israel, and provided the world with uranium, plutonium and hydrogen bombs. Nothing to be ashamed of!
Where's the lie? Christian societies have made the world richer and more advanced. Believing in the incoherent trinity theology is a mark of being part of the group doing good. Choosing to pretend to believe marks that you want to be part of team good.
Would it be better if religious lore believed things that were easier to understand than "Father Son and Holy Ghost are the same, but also separate, and also equal to each other"? Yes. Belief in it is still a mark of being good.
So you argue having a certain set of beliefs is fundamentally good for society but feel that it is illegitimate to be concerned with the number of people who enter sociery with different beliefs.
On learning about evolution, a 19th century woman is reported to have said, "I pray that it not be true, and I pray that if it be true, it never become widely known." Mr. Hanania is just like her. Only the priesthood, which of course includes him, should know the truth about race and IQ, but the rest of us must be kept in the dark.
A "noble lie" is still a lie. Does Mr. Hanania really believe that the tiny numer of whites who burn crosses or commit hate crimes would suddenly double if overlapping bell curves were widely understood and accepted?
And what is wrong with whites who want to remain the majority in the nation their ancestors built, whether in the United States or in Europe? I can recognize all the admirable qualities of East Asians without wanting them to be the majority at Harvard -- or in my neighborhood or country. I prefer the way whites look, think, and behave, and I make no apology for it. This is the way Japanese feel about Japanese, Bantus about Bantus, etc. It appears that Mr. Hanania would deny this natural and healthy preference only to whites. Only we have an obligation to live in multi-culti tension-ridden societies, in which we become minorities.
If people want to live in communities composed of their own race, they are welcome to do so. Indeed, we see ghettos of all sorts of immigrants, so maybe many do, at least until they become acculturated into mainstream society.
Few want to live in the immigrant ghettos. Everyone wants to live in nice white communities. It is illegal to have a nice white community in the USA, at least on purpose.
"And what is wrong with whites who want to remain the majority in the nation their ancestors built, whether in the United States or in Europe?"
Nothing, as long as you frame your argument that way and accept the result of a democratically-determined policy that may go the other way (i.e., if whites who don't care about a white demographic majority outnumber those who do). If you make up, or exaggerate, flaws in non-white people in order to influence or propagandize, then expect people of the opposite bent to do the same to you.
East Asians raised in America think and behave exactly like white people after a few generations. When they go to East Asia as tourists, the native East Asians notice this.
I am not sure where you get the idea that most people think nonwhites should get to be racist. Some woke idiots think that, but most people don't. For instance, it's cool that a bunch of Chinese people emigrated to Africa. It was awesome of Zambia to take in all those white farmers that got expelled from Zimbabwe. It's cool that Israel granted the right of return to Ethiopian Jews.
There is a bit of a contradiction when you claim that the taboo on race science is to protect us from downstream negative results such as explicit racism and nativist economics, yet you yourself admit in this article that those positions have actually become more accepted while race science is still taboo. Plenty of people who support immigration restrictions or protectionism would actually fiercely deny that they believe in genetic group differences, so believing in HBD is neither necessary nor sufficient to have nativist policy views, even if there is some correlation between them.
I think the taboo arises from a more basic instinctive response among EHC folks. Trump calling people "garbage" & "low IQ" and talking about "shithole countries" is par for the course because he's vulgar and boorish; that is how racism is supposed to sound. For smart people like Cofnas and others, you have two effects that bring out the ick in elites:
There is an uncanny valley effect where smart people are not supposed to believe these things, so when HBD people use nerdy smart-people techniques that implicitly prove that racist chuds are directionally more correct on certain issues than elites would like to admit, this creates a much stronger ick effect than the racist chuds themselves, even when they're powerful like Trump.
People being "scientific and sophisticated" about race reminds people of the Nazis, which also triggers a much deeper level of disgust than someone yelling racist slurs.
This overall ick factor makes the fact that people like Cofnas aren't normatively racist irrelevant. Society is supposed to be divided between smart, non-racist elites and racist chuds; people like Cofnas are not part of the plan.
That’s interesting. I guess Cofnas isn’t part of the outgroup but is a “traitor”. He’s a secular Jew from Manhattan who is an academic but became a right wing race realist. That’s considered worse.
You're conflating "taboo" with "official fiction." Even the most autistic weirdo can grasp the idea that saying "all people are equally beautiful" is just being polite. There's no Wikipedia page denouncing the "theory of ugly people" as pseudoscience. No academics are getting fired for endorsing the idea that some people are not attractive.
The problem with "official fiction" is that it's "only costless when it’s common knowledge that the orthodoxies are lies, that everyone knows the orthodoxies are lies, that everyone knows everyone knows the orthodoxies are lies, etc. But this is never common knowledge – that’s what it means to say the orthodoxies are still orthodox."
You're implicitly assuming everyone will either be an orthodoxy-believer or a wise philosopher who knows the truth but can comfortably navigate the censored reality. But for the "well-meaning autists" who love truth more than social conformity, finding out the truth, and how our society covers it up, is bound to derange them. This even happened to a young autist we both know: "The fact that such obvious sophistry could be treated as serious scholarship drove me insane, and made me into Young Hitler."
Worse still, "official fictions" select for the most curious, honest, and truth-seeking among us. People with intellectual instincts will never be satisfied with a worldview that doesn't quite add up, in which the pieces don't quite fit together. Maintaining a false orthodoxy consigns all of them to the same fate: losing trust in all our institutions and picking up the pieces on their own.
How much of the modern derangement on the online right is downstream of this? Blanket distrust of mainstream sources of knoweldge. Getting addicted to "redpills". I'm obviously not saying all the stuff you've been railing against is caused by this one lie, but there are costs to our lies. We should think more carefully about them.
I think the real underlying problem has to do with the tails of the bell curves. The people who matter in most discussion are the tails - the low IQ people committing most violent crimes, and the high IQ people making the most money. The fact that black people, due to a left-shifted IQ bell curve, are heavily overrepresented at the left tail and very underrepresented at the right tail, creates a situation that is unpalatable for most people in society.
This is a great take. If anything, one thing that bolsters your argument is that the race realists *aren't* making the same arguments as they have since the 1960s. Their arguments are a whole lot better now. For example, race realists can fully refute the mantra that populations have been separated for too little time for enough genetic variance between populations to have occurred to the point where they would impact differences in cognitive performance. Today we know the FST (statistical measure of genetic difference between populations) between blacks and whites, and we know its the same as the FST between wolves and coyotes, which we call different species. Yet, the amount of population genetics data, brain scan data etc. that has been accumulated in recent decades makes exactly 0 impact on the acceptability of the thesis that race differences are primarily genetically driven.
Another reason I think race differences remain completely taboo is because the solutions to it do not bolster either the right or left wing's agenda. If race differences are genetic, then we lose a lot of reason to believe woke policies would be helpful. If they are genetic, it also makes conservative thinking that black leadership can fix the problems of the black community by promoting marriage rather far fetched (and conservative solutions to black underperformance are indeed naive and childish).
Maybe. They have the same number of chromosomes and they produce offspring who are themselves capable of reproducing, but they have been classed as separate species since the 1700s. I am not going to argue against merging wolves and coyotes into one specie. Literally, I have no dog in that fight. But it does go to show how inconsistent we are at applying the standards we use for the rest of the mammalian class when defining sub species when it comes to homo sapiens.
<Racists engage in motivated reasoning, and have human nature on their side…>
You engage in your own motivated reasoning. And are quite literally a bigot against racialists. You decry racism but can’t be bothered to even make a case against it other than feeble utterances like “discriminating based on superficial traits like skin color is wrong.” In other words, you moralize against preferences. Putting that aside…
To your credit, you acknowledge human nature, which means you recognize that you are engaged in a project on the scale of the type of things the USSR attempted (in this case, the complete demographic transition of the West) to force your preferences on those who don’t share them. When asked who owns the roads, public lands, etc., you retreat to “I don’t derive my libertarianism from first principles.” No, of course not—it would threaten your entire project.
<In contrast, when others assert that “equality is a scientifically proven fact,” they are communicating that they think it’s actually bad to detest others for their physical appearance.>
1. Why is it ok for women to detest men based on their physical appearance?
2. Why is it ok for intellectuals to detest millions (or at least mostly avoid them) based on genotype?
Your case against racism is not coherent. And the motivated reasoning is apparent.
Recognizing racial differences in characteristics is a big red flag in public society. But the high inheritability that twin studies are finding, and increasing evidence from genetic association studies has really large impact: Active selection matters and it is reasonably maintained into the future. If I run a program that finds the most capable subset of a population and educate/train them so that they can go elsewhere and be much more successful, the left behind population is worse off - they have lost both the genes of the most competent as well as their example for how to succeed. This source population could be Appalachia, the inner city, the coal pits of England, or rural Estonia. There was a study published in Nature about a year ago that showed that the most capable (as measured by genetic association) in the coal pits or England and rural Estonia selectively migrated to areas where they had more opportunity - and this occurred both within and between families. The left behind populations were less capable as measured by the genetic association test - and the economic comparison between the areas obviously will give the same results.
Yes, look for the most capable in an area and let them advance to take advantage of their abilities - college admission programs, trades acceptance programs, military screening tests (the ASVAB correlates highly with IQ and doing well provides access to higher specialties), ... all serve as filters and screens - and in the process help select between relative winners and losers. But the impacts echo across the generations, as the selective loss of the most competent reduces the capability of the left behind populations, both directly and by example.
We should look for and cultivate capability - but it doesn't hurt to admit that there are long term effects as well.
This is a convoluted and confusing article that doesn’t give a good answer to why we should discuss race science. What policy measures do you recommend that factor in race science? It’s unclear that you think policy measures should even be discussed publicly given the repeated emphasis on not empowering bigots.
The typical garden-variety intellectual. First, the white race is perfectly capable of producing intellectuals and doesn't need to import them from India or read Jews. India can keep its intellectuals and prosper instead of exporting them to Europe and the US. Why this is not happening? Why has India never prospered? I guess your concerns are about corporations (aka elites). They don't need racial iq activists to help them recruit, capital is international anyway.
Good people can come from lousy cultures. And immigrants usually assimilate into the culture of the country they immigrate to, eventually. (Unless you do something stupid like the French do, to prevent it.) Sometimes it takes a generation.
Good people can be our friends but it is not a sound policy for a country. Even if it imports only good people which is not the case. The primary responsibily of a state is the wellbeing of its own sitizens (in theory, in practice it is captured by private interests). It is a sound policy only if the locals are ok with it which is again not the case. So to impose this policy on the locals on behalf of its private masters the state and the NGO financed by corporations and states use violence, propaganda, brainwshing, bans race IQ research, captures academia, teaches "tolerance", etc. They also fake Indian IQs
1. It’s easy to forget that most normies (pace JK Rowling) still have no clue about race and IQ, so even in 2026 it can still be loads of fun to explode their minds—just like it’s still fun to explain how gun control and minimum wage laws have the exact opposite of their intended effects. 2. Affirmative action, DEI, disparate impact, preferences, etc have been throughly baked into American life and institutions for the past 50+ years, with materially adverse real world consequences for American competitiveness, meritocratic institutions, basic notions of fairness, college admissions, airline and medical safety, military preparedness—the list goes on and on. It is impossible to properly account for the social costs of these policies without discussing race and IQ. Indeed, the shadow ban on race and IQ leads most normies to conclude that affirmative action is no big deal. The ick factor will gradually recede as more people follow Cofnas’ lead.
It seems like Hanania is avoiding the elephant in the room. The problem is not primarily the connection of race science with nativism. The problem is the connection of race science with eugenics.
"And a lot of people seem to not understand that if groups differ on average, then there are likely to be massive disparities at the extremes of the distribution...." Well yes, that's the problem. I'm sure you've seen this one featuring your old pal Professor Wax.
Over a ten-year period, Columbia Law School graduated 347 black students. Of those students:
2 finished in the top quartile of their class by GPA (0.5%)
19 finished in the second quartile (5.5%)
84 finished in the third quartile (24.2%)
242 finished in the bottom quartile (69.7%)
Does that matter? Are people allowed to know it? If they are, should they actually think about it? Should they discuss it, or shut up about it? Should they do anything about it? Does it have any implications for law school admissions? Law firm hiring? Government recruiting? Judicial appointments?
Cofnas’ whole “So I’m a racist just because I think IQ is heritable?” routine irks me. He’s a racist because he believes people should value people of their own race more than others and that races shouldn’t mix. That has nothing to do with his empirical views.
“A race is like an extended family (although you’ll probably be disappointed if you expect your racial brethren to treat you that way), and it’s natural to care about the fate of your people. Our physical and psychological nature reflects our racial heritage, and for partly biological reasons we may feel a connection to our cultural traditions. Those who truly value diversity should favor the preservation of racial distinctions. There must be some barriers set up between races in order for each one to express its own unique genius. And in the case of group conflict, racial tribalism can sometimes be the key to solving collective-action problems. If whites are attacked qua whites, it makes sense for them to fight back as whites.” I think even charitably construed, this is a racist view.
Preceding paragraph from the same piece:
"I feel no need to quarantine myself from nonwhites (or non-Jews). And the historical record suggests that white nationalism is invariably expressed mainly as negativity toward other races and perceived enemies within the “white” race, which is not something I find attractive. A generation of Internet white nationalists has produced tens of millions of pieces of racist online content, but zero great works of music, art, or literature, and a relatively small amount of high-quality scientific analysis. Despite their claimed love of classical music, there isn’t a single well-known, white-nationalist classical performer, let alone composer. This is not the community that is carrying the torch of Western civilization, as I understand it."
I think the balanced, not particularly charitable view of these two together is that certain forms of defensive, non-violent ethnocentrism can be benign while there is also an obvious risk of it becoming vicious and grotesque if it goes too far. One can of course be categorically hostile to any form of ethnonationalism no matter how mild, but this logically leads to one becoming a misanthrope as most people on this planet are somewhat ethnocentric.
Great. So what does Cofnas want to do?
I won’t speak in his place but if you’re implying that all this is irrelevant to public policy then we have quite a few harmful ones in place that are based on the incorrect blank slatist view:
-DEI & affirmative action
-softness on crime & de-policing following the BLM protests
-mass immigration to Europe (I agree with Richard that this isn’t a big deal in the US)
One can of course argue against these policies without talking about race, but to differing degrees these policies were implemented by appealing to “racial justice” on the other side. Get rid of this stuff and any claims of injustice based on statistical disparities among groups and I think many people will be fine with not talking about race and IQ.
So I agree with cutting all those programs, but I fail to see how they directly come from elites holding the idea of "blank slatism." Cofnas' main thrust is that he believes that if he can change the thinking of the elites to agree with him, and then they will all naturally support these policies.
Which is a fine idea, I suppose. I guess I can't really see myself going to bat for a thesis that is just meant to be a persuasion strategy.
The logic is roughly the following: Elites believe that group differences are environmental (i.e. something that is done to them) -> that is unjust -> must be rectified by DEI. Whether convincing the wider population of hereditarianism is the best way to get rid of DEI (and would on net be a good thing) is highly debatable, but this is the logical chain as Cofnas sees it.
Regarding hereditarianism, I think the main reason smart people should believe in it is simply because it is true. A lot of intelligent people believe some very wrong things due to them thinking group differences are caused exclusively by environmental factors. Sometimes this also leads to bad policies which we should combat, and knowing the truth can be useful for that. If your point is that no positive policy program is derived from knowing this I agree, the main benefits are having a more accurate view of the world & having the tools to discredit certain harmful policies that are currently in place.
A race is literally an extended family.
In some sense that’s obviously true, but so is the whole human race. But you would be hard pressed to convince someone they should favor their sixth cousin over anyone else, or their 10th cousin over their 12th. It would be silly.
> But you would be hard pressed to convince someone they should favor their sixth cousin over anyone else, or their 10th cousin over their 12th.
Do you not know anything about human society?
Not sure I understand. You think the average person does and/or should care about their far distant relatives to a material degree?
Does. In particular, the sentence of yours that I quoted is 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲. It is extremely easy to convince people to favor sixth cousins over strangers. It would be unsurprising for a culture to consider the opposite viewpoint gravely immoral.
In a nation which is dedicated to upholding the principles of race communism, such as our own, this is exactly what we're convincing people of doing.
I think I can piece together what you mean, and I’ll just say this: no good will come out of valuing people for their immutable traits, regardless of who’s doing it. If you can’t beat them, don’t join them.
Again, this is not an option in a nation with civil rights law. We already force everybody who works for the government, seeks an education, buys or sells real-estate, or who owns or works for a company with more than fourteen employees to consider race and sex in everything they do. And no good *has* come from it.
If you genuinely believed your own line of logic, you'd be fighting to *abolish* civil rights law.
what is the benefit of sticking tight with your own race? I grew up in very diverse, liberal and upper middle class American suburbs. Everyone made racist jokes, but, kids divide themselves on a million factors other than race(sometimes race too). why is race such an important distinction to you anyway?
In a truly colorblind meritocracy, none. But the U.S. is not and can never be a colorblind meritocracy for so long as our official line is that unequal outcomes are due to conspiracy by the overperformers, which is the ultimate logic of any system of race communism.
You will favor people of the basal population you share, ie. your subrace if we want to be specific, which is a well grounded concept scientifically and intuitively detectable. That's not to say they exist in pure form in large numbers anymore, but when your enemies come for you based on your race, you'll know more or less where you belong.
It's really not
How is it not?
So should intraracial marriage be banned the same way cousin and sibling marriages currently are?
No. Of course not. Why would you think my acknowledgement that race is real means I don't support people's right to choose their own spouse?
For that matter, first-cousin marriage isn't banned in most of the U.S. It didn't need to be, since the practice has been stigmatized for so long most people don't even need to be told not to do it. It only became a serious problem again when we started importing people for whom the practice is normal, who refuse to assimilate to our ways. People whom also are the source of the vast majority of the practice's problems, since it really isn't a problem if it only happens once every few generations, but when it happens again and again, as such creates clans and breeds clannishness.
I read that article and was disappointed by this denouement. The question for him and all the other race theorists is, "What do you want to do?" for their public policies.
Cofnas weasels out by basically saying, hey, there's gonna be some racial solidarity, and some countries will have race(often arbitrarily designed) quotas, and that'll be good because its the natural will of the people 9(race?).
And he wonders why elites don't want to sign on to his program.
I wrote an article analyzing his whole essay, and that was one of my primary reactions as well. It starts out reasonable enough but then becomes this bizzarre mismash of unsubstantiated theories and vague prescriptions. I can’t think of any clearly useful policies that require increased attention to racial differences and apparently neither can he.
There's not a choice on this in a nation like the U.S., which mandates that race be considered at every level of society to correct inequality of outcome between races.
The only defense against this argument is that it's not true. Inequality of outcome is, in a free-market society, due to different temperaments, at both the level of groups and individuals.
I’ve seen statements like this throughout this thread, and I just don’t find them to be true. I can only draw so much from my own anecdotal experience but I don’t actually see this omnipresent systemic race salience at all. I’m aware it exists, but as a straight white male who is successful professionally and who works with people of various demographic backgrounds who are just as competent(oftentimes more) as me, I just can’t imagine it is this endemic problem that you describe. I believe it is a narrative, and like all narratives, its tend overemphasize its applicability and tend to see more evidence of it than those who aren’t looking for it. I’m not even saying I necessarily support race conscious laws(they at least need to be phased out eventually) but I just think their actual impact, for better or worse, is overstated.
more saliently, there is no mechanism guaranteeing that if we all understood hereditary race science, the bad policies will go away.
The race-consciousness laws exist to equalize outcomes. Without admitting *why* they can't equalize outcomes, there can never be a justification for getting rid of them. There can only be justification for making them worse. *More* intrusive.
He married a Korean.
What a Chiloni, oy wey. Yes, I've just seen it posted on X through bing search. Whereas google AI blocks this personal info.
Didn’t know that but not sure how it jives with his belief that racial distinctions should be preserved.
We chosen people are flexible race realists. So if someone converts kedat hahalacha, he/she could be married. On the other hand, getting a conversion kedat hahalacha is a tough selection process. See the story of Ruth and Orpah.
Cofnas is married? Or Hanania is married to a Korean?
No, Cofnas. Anyway, had she converted kedat hahalacha, it wouldn't be an issue unless he's a Cohen.
Both are married to Koreans.
wasn't he married to a hispanic lady ?
Thanks for the info
Has he said that? I haven’t read anything from him opposing “race mixing.” It’s not really his vibe.
There's no reason to oppose voluntary race mixing. The issue is involuntary, mandatory race mixing, which is inseparable from civil rights law and the default assumption of cognitive equality between races. Either you believe in freedom of association and intellectual honesty or you don't.
I suppose there could be some other explanation for what he means by barriers between the races” but I don’t know how you would accomplish his goal of preserving distinct races without some level of anti-miscegenation.
As someone who generally agrees with Steve Sailer, I take Mr. Hanania's warnings seriously. But he too should be careful. When he writes, "We see in opposition to Indian immigration in particular that a lot of people just want to hate," he is being simplistic. "Hate" is among the most overused words of the censorious left, so it is disappointing to see him using it this way. It is possible, far short of hate, to generally not feel comfortable with certain types of people, to find their ways annoying and so forth. By writing of "hate" to clobber anti-immigrationists, Mr. Hanania takes the extreme case for the norm, which of course makes arguing against it much easier for him.
Can you explain why Indians immigrants to America, who have high IQ's, low crime rates, low illegitimacy rates, no cultural impact, and are net taxpayers happen to ignite such anger among immigration restrictions that doesn't include the word hate?
I thought my comment answered that question already. Have you never met anyone whose virtues or capabilities you respected but who just "rubbed you the wrong way"? Is your world divided into just two categories, Like and Hate? To me it seems the most obvious thing that there are all shades of like and dislike, that they may be independent of our conscious values, and that "hate" is for most of us a rare phenomenon at the tail end of the "dislike" category.
Where do you draw the line between dislike and hate? I see people posting slurs and cheering as people are separated from their kids and deported. Most of the ones doing it live in 90+% white areas. The most restrictionist regions have damn near no immigrants. Especially not Indians, who make tons of money
Hate is the correct word. The vitriol at Indians is so obviously unjustified.
Indifference> mild preference/dislike> strong preference/dislike>hate
There are many gradients of dislike before you get to hate or vitriol.
Why does the degree of dislike matter? If someone is doing good, not harm, why shouldn't they be excluded?
Personally, I quite like Indians. I work with a lot of them and find them to be quite decent people, on the whole. Some I quite like, some I dislike -- they're people, so that's just inevitable.
His point is that you can use a thesaurus to find synonyms for hate. Thereby, one can avoid that particular buzzword. (That’s what the point comes down to, anyway.)
Do you mean my point, Garrett? If so, once again I must say I'm amazed at being misunderstood. I am all in favor of using "hate" when it means "hate". I don't like Pop-Tarts, but I don't hate them. Still astounded that Brandon above finds the distinction hard to grasp.
Individual can (and do) rub you the wrong way. The people Hanania is talking about dislike (see, I avoided using "hate") Indians regardless of any personal interactions they've had with individual Indians, and in many (perhaps most) cases have never had interactions with any individual Indians.
In fact, when one is exposed to social media (who isn't nowadays?), unflattering or unpleasant illustrations of Indians seems to trigger a general dislike of Indians among a section of the public, precisely because they look so unfamiliar. Pictures and nice-sounding arguments from the likes of Sailer have proven capability to be much more viral and relatable than hard statistics.
Ethnic nepotism on the part of senior Indian managers.
My last manager was a second generation Indian, and I saw no such behavior. He was basically "white". He happened to be a vegetarian, but so are a lot of liberal white men from San Francisco. But other than that he was essentially totally assimilated.
Give me some numbers. From what I understand, it's the opposite. Good look trying to get hired/promoted if you're Dalit.
I don’t know the numbers; I am saying that is the perception among many who oppose Indian immigration. And by “ethnic nepotism” we can certainly include favoritism based on caste or region.
Isn’t the anti-Dalit thing a reason to oppose Indian immigration? I mean, we have enough stupidities in our culture; they are importing the caste system here? Is that really something we want?
The anti-Semites of 19th and early 20th century Europe had very similar "perceptions" about Jews, who seemed to dominate so many respectable and lucrative professions. You should ask yourself if perceptions ought to trump proof.
The Dalit thing is also a myth. There have been zero cases of proven anti-Dalit discrimination (i.e., via won lawsuits) in tech firms in the US. Such discriminaton is rare even in urban India in modern service industries. Anybody can allege any kind of discrimination if they wish, and there is a cottage industry of professional anti-discrimination activists who will cook up narratives based on real historical oppression (like the BLM "defund the police" types.)
You can control such behavior. Restricting the ability of pur country to secure high quality talent because their stupid tribal allegiances are a problem is absurd. Making our country poorer, as opposed to not promoting those who are likely to undermine the business is every bit as suicidally stupid as throwing open the doors and letting every 75IQ welfare parasite in.
Because they're competitors for the same white collar jobs as people who write a lot about politics.
This is a reasonable argument, but it's a bit like someone in the Middle Ages saying 'over time cultural mores have changed and what was taboo is celebrated and vice versa, but the Trinity remains the ultimate taboo, must be something off about Trinity opponents'. And, in truth, there usually was something weird about people who denied the Trinity because heretics are messed up dysfunctional people almost by definition.
Jews all denied trinity. Does it mean we are dysfunctional people, lol?
Medieval Europeans would *definitely* say you were/are. And so would Europeans for many centuries after that.
Your crime, of course, was not just being heretics but being highly *competent* heretics, entirely too successful in business. The key was to stay poor and downtrodden so you could be looked down upon, thereby proving that god was favoring proper Christians. But, no, you just couldn't keep from showing off :P
I suppose they mostly brought it on themselves, by forcing you to be bankers. If you want a people to be financially unsuccessful, that's not the profession you should box them into.
Staying poor is no salvation - look at the gypsies. Lots of European ones landed in the gas chambers.
In the mean time, we developed Kabbala and Chassidut, reestablished the state of Israel, and provided the world with uranium, plutonium and hydrogen bombs. Nothing to be ashamed of!
I don't think Miskil would dispute this:
https://nonzionism.com/p/modern-jewish-history-part-i
Where's the lie? Christian societies have made the world richer and more advanced. Believing in the incoherent trinity theology is a mark of being part of the group doing good. Choosing to pretend to believe marks that you want to be part of team good.
Would it be better if religious lore believed things that were easier to understand than "Father Son and Holy Ghost are the same, but also separate, and also equal to each other"? Yes. Belief in it is still a mark of being good.
So you argue having a certain set of beliefs is fundamentally good for society but feel that it is illegitimate to be concerned with the number of people who enter sociery with different beliefs.
Yep - it's kind of Leo Strauss "The Noble Lie" argument.
Marxist-Leninists also had a word for it - Politically Incorrect. Things that are Politically Incorrect are true, YET politically incorrect.
On learning about evolution, a 19th century woman is reported to have said, "I pray that it not be true, and I pray that if it be true, it never become widely known." Mr. Hanania is just like her. Only the priesthood, which of course includes him, should know the truth about race and IQ, but the rest of us must be kept in the dark.
A "noble lie" is still a lie. Does Mr. Hanania really believe that the tiny numer of whites who burn crosses or commit hate crimes would suddenly double if overlapping bell curves were widely understood and accepted?
And what is wrong with whites who want to remain the majority in the nation their ancestors built, whether in the United States or in Europe? I can recognize all the admirable qualities of East Asians without wanting them to be the majority at Harvard -- or in my neighborhood or country. I prefer the way whites look, think, and behave, and I make no apology for it. This is the way Japanese feel about Japanese, Bantus about Bantus, etc. It appears that Mr. Hanania would deny this natural and healthy preference only to whites. Only we have an obligation to live in multi-culti tension-ridden societies, in which we become minorities.
If people want to live in communities composed of their own race, they are welcome to do so. Indeed, we see ghettos of all sorts of immigrants, so maybe many do, at least until they become acculturated into mainstream society.
Few want to live in the immigrant ghettos. Everyone wants to live in nice white communities. It is illegal to have a nice white community in the USA, at least on purpose.
It's illegal to exclude (I suppose what you mean by "on purpose").
But it's not illegal to move to places where others are mostly your own race. If that's what you're looking for.
Personally, I'd be OK with making it legal to exclude if done by private (contractual) means, but I wouldn't want to live in such a place.
"And what is wrong with whites who want to remain the majority in the nation their ancestors built, whether in the United States or in Europe?"
Nothing, as long as you frame your argument that way and accept the result of a democratically-determined policy that may go the other way (i.e., if whites who don't care about a white demographic majority outnumber those who do). If you make up, or exaggerate, flaws in non-white people in order to influence or propagandize, then expect people of the opposite bent to do the same to you.
East Asians raised in America think and behave exactly like white people after a few generations. When they go to East Asia as tourists, the native East Asians notice this.
I am not sure where you get the idea that most people think nonwhites should get to be racist. Some woke idiots think that, but most people don't. For instance, it's cool that a bunch of Chinese people emigrated to Africa. It was awesome of Zambia to take in all those white farmers that got expelled from Zimbabwe. It's cool that Israel granted the right of return to Ethiopian Jews.
There is a bit of a contradiction when you claim that the taboo on race science is to protect us from downstream negative results such as explicit racism and nativist economics, yet you yourself admit in this article that those positions have actually become more accepted while race science is still taboo. Plenty of people who support immigration restrictions or protectionism would actually fiercely deny that they believe in genetic group differences, so believing in HBD is neither necessary nor sufficient to have nativist policy views, even if there is some correlation between them.
I think the taboo arises from a more basic instinctive response among EHC folks. Trump calling people "garbage" & "low IQ" and talking about "shithole countries" is par for the course because he's vulgar and boorish; that is how racism is supposed to sound. For smart people like Cofnas and others, you have two effects that bring out the ick in elites:
There is an uncanny valley effect where smart people are not supposed to believe these things, so when HBD people use nerdy smart-people techniques that implicitly prove that racist chuds are directionally more correct on certain issues than elites would like to admit, this creates a much stronger ick effect than the racist chuds themselves, even when they're powerful like Trump.
People being "scientific and sophisticated" about race reminds people of the Nazis, which also triggers a much deeper level of disgust than someone yelling racist slurs.
This overall ick factor makes the fact that people like Cofnas aren't normatively racist irrelevant. Society is supposed to be divided between smart, non-racist elites and racist chuds; people like Cofnas are not part of the plan.
That’s interesting. I guess Cofnas isn’t part of the outgroup but is a “traitor”. He’s a secular Jew from Manhattan who is an academic but became a right wing race realist. That’s considered worse.
You're conflating "taboo" with "official fiction." Even the most autistic weirdo can grasp the idea that saying "all people are equally beautiful" is just being polite. There's no Wikipedia page denouncing the "theory of ugly people" as pseudoscience. No academics are getting fired for endorsing the idea that some people are not attractive.
The problem with "official fiction" is that it's "only costless when it’s common knowledge that the orthodoxies are lies, that everyone knows the orthodoxies are lies, that everyone knows everyone knows the orthodoxies are lies, etc. But this is never common knowledge – that’s what it means to say the orthodoxies are still orthodox."
You're implicitly assuming everyone will either be an orthodoxy-believer or a wise philosopher who knows the truth but can comfortably navigate the censored reality. But for the "well-meaning autists" who love truth more than social conformity, finding out the truth, and how our society covers it up, is bound to derange them. This even happened to a young autist we both know: "The fact that such obvious sophistry could be treated as serious scholarship drove me insane, and made me into Young Hitler."
Worse still, "official fictions" select for the most curious, honest, and truth-seeking among us. People with intellectual instincts will never be satisfied with a worldview that doesn't quite add up, in which the pieces don't quite fit together. Maintaining a false orthodoxy consigns all of them to the same fate: losing trust in all our institutions and picking up the pieces on their own.
How much of the modern derangement on the online right is downstream of this? Blanket distrust of mainstream sources of knoweldge. Getting addicted to "redpills". I'm obviously not saying all the stuff you've been railing against is caused by this one lie, but there are costs to our lies. We should think more carefully about them.
I think the real underlying problem has to do with the tails of the bell curves. The people who matter in most discussion are the tails - the low IQ people committing most violent crimes, and the high IQ people making the most money. The fact that black people, due to a left-shifted IQ bell curve, are heavily overrepresented at the left tail and very underrepresented at the right tail, creates a situation that is unpalatable for most people in society.
This is a great take. If anything, one thing that bolsters your argument is that the race realists *aren't* making the same arguments as they have since the 1960s. Their arguments are a whole lot better now. For example, race realists can fully refute the mantra that populations have been separated for too little time for enough genetic variance between populations to have occurred to the point where they would impact differences in cognitive performance. Today we know the FST (statistical measure of genetic difference between populations) between blacks and whites, and we know its the same as the FST between wolves and coyotes, which we call different species. Yet, the amount of population genetics data, brain scan data etc. that has been accumulated in recent decades makes exactly 0 impact on the acceptability of the thesis that race differences are primarily genetically driven.
Another reason I think race differences remain completely taboo is because the solutions to it do not bolster either the right or left wing's agenda. If race differences are genetic, then we lose a lot of reason to believe woke policies would be helpful. If they are genetic, it also makes conservative thinking that black leadership can fix the problems of the black community by promoting marriage rather far fetched (and conservative solutions to black underperformance are indeed naive and childish).
You have reinforced my belief that considering dogs, wolves and coyotes to be different species is dumb.
I'll be sure to tell this to the local animal shelter when I force them to foster my rescue coyotes..
Maybe. They have the same number of chromosomes and they produce offspring who are themselves capable of reproducing, but they have been classed as separate species since the 1700s. I am not going to argue against merging wolves and coyotes into one specie. Literally, I have no dog in that fight. But it does go to show how inconsistent we are at applying the standards we use for the rest of the mammalian class when defining sub species when it comes to homo sapiens.
<Racists engage in motivated reasoning, and have human nature on their side…>
You engage in your own motivated reasoning. And are quite literally a bigot against racialists. You decry racism but can’t be bothered to even make a case against it other than feeble utterances like “discriminating based on superficial traits like skin color is wrong.” In other words, you moralize against preferences. Putting that aside…
To your credit, you acknowledge human nature, which means you recognize that you are engaged in a project on the scale of the type of things the USSR attempted (in this case, the complete demographic transition of the West) to force your preferences on those who don’t share them. When asked who owns the roads, public lands, etc., you retreat to “I don’t derive my libertarianism from first principles.” No, of course not—it would threaten your entire project.
<In contrast, when others assert that “equality is a scientifically proven fact,” they are communicating that they think it’s actually bad to detest others for their physical appearance.>
1. Why is it ok for women to detest men based on their physical appearance?
2. Why is it ok for intellectuals to detest millions (or at least mostly avoid them) based on genotype?
Your case against racism is not coherent. And the motivated reasoning is apparent.
Recognizing racial differences in characteristics is a big red flag in public society. But the high inheritability that twin studies are finding, and increasing evidence from genetic association studies has really large impact: Active selection matters and it is reasonably maintained into the future. If I run a program that finds the most capable subset of a population and educate/train them so that they can go elsewhere and be much more successful, the left behind population is worse off - they have lost both the genes of the most competent as well as their example for how to succeed. This source population could be Appalachia, the inner city, the coal pits of England, or rural Estonia. There was a study published in Nature about a year ago that showed that the most capable (as measured by genetic association) in the coal pits or England and rural Estonia selectively migrated to areas where they had more opportunity - and this occurred both within and between families. The left behind populations were less capable as measured by the genetic association test - and the economic comparison between the areas obviously will give the same results.
Yes, look for the most capable in an area and let them advance to take advantage of their abilities - college admission programs, trades acceptance programs, military screening tests (the ASVAB correlates highly with IQ and doing well provides access to higher specialties), ... all serve as filters and screens - and in the process help select between relative winners and losers. But the impacts echo across the generations, as the selective loss of the most competent reduces the capability of the left behind populations, both directly and by example.
We should look for and cultivate capability - but it doesn't hurt to admit that there are long term effects as well.
This is a convoluted and confusing article that doesn’t give a good answer to why we should discuss race science. What policy measures do you recommend that factor in race science? It’s unclear that you think policy measures should even be discussed publicly given the repeated emphasis on not empowering bigots.
Don't spend so much money on black education: its a waste of money
The typical garden-variety intellectual. First, the white race is perfectly capable of producing intellectuals and doesn't need to import them from India or read Jews. India can keep its intellectuals and prosper instead of exporting them to Europe and the US. Why this is not happening? Why has India never prospered? I guess your concerns are about corporations (aka elites). They don't need racial iq activists to help them recruit, capital is international anyway.
"Why is this not happening" is mostly because of culture.
What's special about the West (and initially the US) is culture and the institutions the culture supports and engenders.
Anybody from any background can adopt a culture. If they want to.
Ok. We have the Indian "culture" and supposedly the Indian "intellectuals". And it is a giant shithole. Why would anyone need them and for what?
Good people can come from lousy cultures. And immigrants usually assimilate into the culture of the country they immigrate to, eventually. (Unless you do something stupid like the French do, to prevent it.) Sometimes it takes a generation.
Good people can be our friends but it is not a sound policy for a country. Even if it imports only good people which is not the case. The primary responsibily of a state is the wellbeing of its own sitizens (in theory, in practice it is captured by private interests). It is a sound policy only if the locals are ok with it which is again not the case. So to impose this policy on the locals on behalf of its private masters the state and the NGO financed by corporations and states use violence, propaganda, brainwshing, bans race IQ research, captures academia, teaches "tolerance", etc. They also fake Indian IQs
1. It’s easy to forget that most normies (pace JK Rowling) still have no clue about race and IQ, so even in 2026 it can still be loads of fun to explode their minds—just like it’s still fun to explain how gun control and minimum wage laws have the exact opposite of their intended effects. 2. Affirmative action, DEI, disparate impact, preferences, etc have been throughly baked into American life and institutions for the past 50+ years, with materially adverse real world consequences for American competitiveness, meritocratic institutions, basic notions of fairness, college admissions, airline and medical safety, military preparedness—the list goes on and on. It is impossible to properly account for the social costs of these policies without discussing race and IQ. Indeed, the shadow ban on race and IQ leads most normies to conclude that affirmative action is no big deal. The ick factor will gradually recede as more people follow Cofnas’ lead.
It seems like Hanania is avoiding the elephant in the room. The problem is not primarily the connection of race science with nativism. The problem is the connection of race science with eugenics.
"And a lot of people seem to not understand that if groups differ on average, then there are likely to be massive disparities at the extremes of the distribution...." Well yes, that's the problem. I'm sure you've seen this one featuring your old pal Professor Wax.
https://substack.com/@zagrebbi/p-195828612
Over a ten-year period, Columbia Law School graduated 347 black students. Of those students:
2 finished in the top quartile of their class by GPA (0.5%)
19 finished in the second quartile (5.5%)
84 finished in the third quartile (24.2%)
242 finished in the bottom quartile (69.7%)
Does that matter? Are people allowed to know it? If they are, should they actually think about it? Should they discuss it, or shut up about it? Should they do anything about it? Does it have any implications for law school admissions? Law firm hiring? Government recruiting? Judicial appointments?