"People all over the world flee third world countries and flood into first world nations, abandoning their cultures and ways of life, because they want a higher standard of living."
This is not an accurate description of reality. I don't know how it is in the US, but certainly in Europe, the people from third world countries in large part do not "abandon their cultures and ways of life" when they come here. They actively preserve these (and are encouraged to do so by the prevailing narrative and policies of "multiculturalism"), in part alongside- but often also in opposition to the prevailing host culture. This is the whole point of multiculturalism. As a result there are immense problems with integration, especially with people from Muslim countries and particular third world countries like Eritrea. There are basically parallel societies, there is very little intermarrying (again, especially between Muslim immigrant populations and non-Muslim native populations) and little shared cultural life. There is a lot of direct influence on immigrant populations from the nations of origin as well (for example, Turkish mosques in my country are directly coordinated by the Turkish ministry of religion, Diyanet). In addition, tribal conflicts are imported to European streets, as was exemplified by a mass riot between two groups of Eritreans in The Hague a few days ago. And let's not forget the mass "pro-Palestine" (or pro-Hamas, if you will) demonstrations in major Western cities.
I dispute that "HBD is just white nationalism", but let's leave that to one side. When leftists attribute racial disparities to "systemic racism", and then argue for policies like affirmative action and racial reparations, how do you respond other than by invoking HBD?
A century of psychological research shows that *individuals* are smart or stupid almost entirely because of genetic endowment. Once nutrition and basic schooling is ensured there is not a huge amount that environment or schooling can do to this.
Yet *all public debates everywhere* about education completely ignore this fact! This goes for all sorts of countries with all sorts of social beliefs. Public policy states that education is an unalloyed good, with no ceiling or even diminishing returns to more education.
I’m in the tiny minority of people who would give a lot less public subsidy to education than at present. I don’t even know how niche my position is, I have never come across an NGO or politician who holds it. Suffice to say it’s really fringe. All my friends, colleagues and family are 115-135 IQ types. When I gently troll them by mentioning their “IQ privilege” they really cannot even conceive of the term, never mind deal with the implications.
My views aren’t really part of another bundle of radical beliefs, my own analysis is that public money spent on education would be better spent on welfare payments or wage subsidies. This is kind of socialist!
My point is that some claims in social science are (a) unambiguously true; (b) very costly if people believe the precise opposite; (c) relevant for any debate about the huge share of private resources that government confiscates and redistributes.
If you don't understand group differences in cognitive and behavioural traits (not just intelligence) then the world is significantly harder to understand. You can understand these things and still be a conservative, or a libertarian or a socialist, an Azerbaijani irredentist or a Moonie, but you will significantly better at applying that ideology to the real world without disastrous consequences.
Imagine if large proportions of otherwise intelligent and informed people knew literally nothing about economics, as in you could say the words 'supply and demand' and it wouldn't ring a bell. Imagine that talking about supply and demand could get you fired from your job, kicked off Facebook, and, if you lived in many European countries, arrested. Imagine, then, that an edgy liberaltarian told you it didn't really matter because a lot of smart people already know about supply and demand and are just too savvy to go on about it, whereas all the people talking about supply and demand are internet weirdos.
*
"Imagine a leftist coming along and saying that all you have to do is show Sailer that Latinos don’t litter all that much, and then he’ll support immigration! "
Well that would be hard for a fairly obvious reason, but Steve Sailer actually writes a lot about how Hispanic behaviour is a lot more amenable than Black behaviour to top-down intervention.
*
"I’ve noticed that on the right, the more individuals accept group differences between races, the more they want society organized to satisfy the preferences of the worst whites and make excuses for their behavior."
“People who get really into group differences and put it at the center of their politics don’t actually care all that much about the science. I think for the most part they just think foreigners and other races are icky.”
People are routinely brutalized by blacks and other low iq races. Then they see them lavished by every institution, and themselves blamed for every ill. I think you are belittling the indignities that many whites face, and will face to a greater extent as the demographics of the country change.
You also dont engage with zach goldberg’s research on in group preferences (ie: all groups love themselves and hate whites the most).
On the open borders front: youve never outlined a viable strategy by which politicians can play different groups off against each other indefinitely to prevent the forming of coalitions for racial chavism. Weve seen with left wing politics in america that hating and expropriating whites is a viable shelling point, able to unite both gays and muslims in one coalition.
Most likely outcome is we get more leftism, more resources expended on babysitting low iq populations, harder to get things done (like starting business) due to lower social trust and increased regulations/ethnic patronage, and inexorably declining living standards.
Despite being a realist in other respects, you dont incorporate into your worldview the reality that some portion of the population will inevitably be xenophobic and resistant to demographic transformation.
If the requirement for right wing pro market political success in a diverse america is the total absence of any right wing xenophobia (so as not to offend immigrant sensibilities—which seems to be your theory as to why more latinos and asians dont vote republican) then that is very bleak
Should be mentioned that there is a multicultural country where racial differences are openly accepted. Here is Lee Kuan Yew:
“The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. Ths are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow.
… Supposing we had hidden the truth and taken the American approach and said, all men are equal. Then they (The less able or well-off) will demand equal results. And when the results are not equal, they will demand more equal treatment.“
> Steve Sailer is insightful on many things, but if you assign him an article on housing, littering, or any issue really, it will just turn into a tirade against immigration. I searched Steve’s blog for “littering” and practically every result on the first page was somehow connected to Latinos or immigrants.
> Imagine a leftist coming along and saying that all you have to do is show Sailer that Latinos don’t litter all that much, and then he’ll support immigration! Obviously the whole littering obsession is a pretense, just like his solutions for housing and global warming
It's difficult to see how you could come to this conclusion on Steve Sailer's views on littering after reading any of his several posts on the subject of Latino littering. They have a very consistent theme and recommendation, as follows:
1. American whites used to litter all the time, which was bad.
2. Public awareness campaigns successfully shamed them into not doing that, which was good.
3. Latinos currently litter all the time, which is bad.
4. We should shame them until they stop doing that.
The recommendation is always to pressure them into not littering and never to stop them from being wherever they are. The tirade is against the taboo on mentioning that littering is a problem specific to them, because that prevents the shaming campaign from working or, really, beginning.
Richard, I think you have the chain of causation backwards. Many people become White Identitarians AFTER finding out the truth about HBD and witnessing the real pain and suffering caused by denying reality. The lie has to end.
If immigration threatened western institutions, the blob would have stopped it long ago. Immigration destabilizes western societies (assimilation is no longer the norm), which increases the reliance on western institutions.
>Liberalism naturally appeals to many fewer people than conservatism or leftism, but it stays in the game because, of the three great ideologies, it’s easily the one most likely to be vindicated by real world events, since it is correct.
You could call it the "Efficient Ideology Hypothesis."
Obviously in a multi-ideology split, pure Liberalism will have the least adherents. This is usually used as an argument against Liberalism, framing the GOP as 'markets aren't moral' meaning markets that Jesus approves of, and leftists as being "markets don't have heart" meaning that you're supposed to care about effects of the poor and downtrodden first and foremost.
Which are attacks that one can make by the way. It's true that markets frequently trigger cons, and markets do in fact increase inequality. But Liberalism still features in the center, center-right, and center-left because over time its track record makes it so. Rational-minded people can't deny either the pure logic of Liberalism or its track record (combined, these two features make Liberalism irrefutable as an idea.)
People ask 'why isn't the US a pure social democracy' which is an interesting historical question, but a question that is more interesting is "why aren't European countries entirely communist at this point?" It's that in the 21st century, rationally-minded people are compelled to accept the logic of Liberalism and therefore even in Europe they don't stray too far away and if anything are back-sliding towards more Liberalism.
The thing is, people have already shut up about race and IQ. It's literally taboo to even bring up the idea in most polite company, including among mainstream conservatives. It's also banned from discussion on most major platforms. Do you see Jared Taylor on YouTube? If it's just relegated to a few guys and anons on X, why the big screed? You're acting like HBD talking points are becoming mainstream and I just don't see it.
Also how do you square this with the way you talk about Palestinians? Demographics aren't destiny you know, Israel can absorb all of Gaza and just win them over with ideas, right?
“Countries that adopt libertarian ideas become like Dubai or Singapore”
Although open borders is not really libertarian, these countries do not have open borders, so they are not fully “libertarian” (in the sense that you mean); nor do they have full private property. If they did have open borders, they would likely be swamped with low IQ poor people and their countries would be irrevocably changed (and probably for the worse). But maybe the continued absence of democracy would keep the problems under wraps. The US does not have open borders either, so we (thankfully) have not yet experienced swamping.
The US & West achieved incredible prosperity as racially homogeneous nations (its the reason we are a magnet for immigrants). That doesn’t mean we can’t continue to grow economically as a multi-racial nation but your argument against whites maintaining their homeland is primarily built on PC arguments that their preferences are somehow “wrong” because they’re “collectivist” (a borderline tautology)—as if de jure ownership of streets, roads, etc. is somehow inferior to state ownership. Support for mass non-white immigration is an elite project akin to the other faddish elite projects that you rightly ridicule in your article. Ironically, you take the stupid excusers of J6 to task but support anti-democratic views when your views align with the elites.
Whites have been relentlessly browbeaten against racism by state schools, Hollywood, tv, etc., so, yes, many would be comfortable with a multi-racial (upscale!) neighborhood after these Soviet-style propaganda efforts, but if the propaganda ceased and the anti-discrimination laws were ended, it’s hard to say what an actual libertarian society would look like in terms of non-white immigration if all roads, streets, etc. were privatized. You say white nationalists are afraid to find out but everything the anti-racists have achieved has been done through statism and relentless PC propaganda. The anti-racists are the ones who would be afraid if statist PC propaganda had never been so relentlessly pushed, anti-discrimination laws never passed (due to anti-racist propaganda), and more privatization achieved. There is irony in a “based” libertarian pushing a PC view on race long promoted by statist schools and loony PC progressives.
MacDonald has already rebutted the particular arguments you made against his views. If you were familiar with them, you likely would have included them in your criticisms. Yes, Jews marry out in significant numbers but that doesn’t mean there aren’t significant numbers of ethnocentric Jews. It’s truly absurd to look at Zionists, Israel, Orthodox communities, etc. and not see Jews who pursue a their group interest. How did they survive for thousands of years? Do you think they have taken no proactive measures as a group to ensure their safety? But if you did acknowledge their ethnocentrism, you would appear to be blatantly hypocritical in denouncing white nationalism while providing de facto support for Jewish nationalism. But I do appreciate the fact that if whites created a religion around being white, you would wish them well as long as they didn’t resist the transformation of the US into a multiracial libertarian paradise.
Singapore and Dubai are intensely conservative places. The rambling screed is a shambles intellectually. I'll respond substantively to two points in the essay, IQ and groups in social order.
1. Best science today says IQ is 50% heritable, 50% nurture. Recent science has shown massive impacts of infant environment and experience with parents as crucial, and may lead to more than 50% being nurture and epigenetics. A simple example is the number of words a child hears spoken to them in the first 5 years of their lives seems very correlated with IQ, and there seems to be a developmental phase early on that is impacted by being spoken too. Eye contact and physical contact are equally as important. I saw a great Ted talk by a scientist focused on this a couple of years ago, we may yet make real progress on understanding how to optimize cognitive development. It was early days but it made so much sense.
2. Groups - While reading this I wanted to scream, "read E. O. Wilson's The Social Conquest of Earth for God's sake!". Intergroup competition is THE engine of human success as a species. Dawkins is wrong, kin selection theory does not explain human dominance as a species well at all, nor our evolution. Group selection theory does. Human's are by orders of magnitude the most sophisticated social creatures to ever exist. Once one understands the centrality of human's forming 'ingroups' and developing 'traditions' and culture and how they evolve in a competitive intergroup setting, it can't be forgotten.
The suspicious tone about 'ingroups' is just silly. They are important due to the high trust that exists between members of these groups, and the concomitant private social environment they have in that ingroup. In say one's Church, it's expected to help each other out in reasonable ways. Borrow the lawnmower, cuz mine broke, check in on an older parent while the rest of the family is away. Family membership involves more trust and more privacy. Ingroups allow us to deal with many aspects of life in better ways due to shared resources and trust. We need to be part of ingroups to flourish in a free society. Thankfully, in the West we have the liberty to move in and out of certain ingroups (job, neighborhoods, schools, etc,), which results in the ability to re-invent oneself even. It certainly provides many 'ladders' for people to climb.
Conservatives are about social order, not mere 'nationalism' and 'religion'. Ordered liberty is what works for a society to thrive, and order must precede liberty. It's a necessary, but insufficient, condition for liberty. The banal and trite ways these and other hefty ideas are bandied about in this essay is quite disappointing. Is the author reaching beyond his grasp? Or does this essay just need a strong edit?
This is a very Haidtian analysis (think of the elephant and the rider) that is probably broadly correct. However, I would just add a couple of points to provide some nuance.
First is that most academics are monomaniacal obsessives about one particular topic. This is what academia selects for and rewards. (People who know about a lot of different topics become essayists and op-ed writers). Academia should have a home for people who are obsessed about any topic -- so long as it is true -- and even sometimes when it is not. The fact that academia doesn't provide a home for these scholars is itself an example of institutional failure.
Second, the treatment that these scholars have had from mainstream academia may have influenced their political views. If they had not been run out of scholarly institutions, and were able to receive stable salaries commensurate with their academic skill, their political views might be vastly different. (Remember, you are writing from the point of view of an entrepreneur and writer who has the luxury of a stable income and can see the benefit of free markets, because you are the beneficiary of them. Not everyone has this privilege.)
HBD is such a taboo subject that reasonable people who believe it have a large incentive to remain quiet. This means that we've ceded a monopoly on the subject to unhinged racialists. Your experiences aren't wrong and mirror my own, but you are casting a very wide net here. White nationalists are on average dumber and less effective than liberals who deny HBD, so the fear that by being honest about group differences we will empower white nationalist arguments seems like paranoia.
"Truth in and of itself is never a good reason to talk about something.
I think you need to substantiate this point. The problem with white nationalists is that most of what they say is incorrect. Even when they are right, they engage in innumeracy and exaggerate the social costs of low IQ people. Trying to hide from the topic just gives more legitimacy to the racialists, because IQ is in fact real.
"People all over the world flee third world countries and flood into first world nations, abandoning their cultures and ways of life, because they want a higher standard of living."
This is not an accurate description of reality. I don't know how it is in the US, but certainly in Europe, the people from third world countries in large part do not "abandon their cultures and ways of life" when they come here. They actively preserve these (and are encouraged to do so by the prevailing narrative and policies of "multiculturalism"), in part alongside- but often also in opposition to the prevailing host culture. This is the whole point of multiculturalism. As a result there are immense problems with integration, especially with people from Muslim countries and particular third world countries like Eritrea. There are basically parallel societies, there is very little intermarrying (again, especially between Muslim immigrant populations and non-Muslim native populations) and little shared cultural life. There is a lot of direct influence on immigrant populations from the nations of origin as well (for example, Turkish mosques in my country are directly coordinated by the Turkish ministry of religion, Diyanet). In addition, tribal conflicts are imported to European streets, as was exemplified by a mass riot between two groups of Eritreans in The Hague a few days ago. And let's not forget the mass "pro-Palestine" (or pro-Hamas, if you will) demonstrations in major Western cities.
I dispute that "HBD is just white nationalism", but let's leave that to one side. When leftists attribute racial disparities to "systemic racism", and then argue for policies like affirmative action and racial reparations, how do you respond other than by invoking HBD?
A century of psychological research shows that *individuals* are smart or stupid almost entirely because of genetic endowment. Once nutrition and basic schooling is ensured there is not a huge amount that environment or schooling can do to this.
Yet *all public debates everywhere* about education completely ignore this fact! This goes for all sorts of countries with all sorts of social beliefs. Public policy states that education is an unalloyed good, with no ceiling or even diminishing returns to more education.
I’m in the tiny minority of people who would give a lot less public subsidy to education than at present. I don’t even know how niche my position is, I have never come across an NGO or politician who holds it. Suffice to say it’s really fringe. All my friends, colleagues and family are 115-135 IQ types. When I gently troll them by mentioning their “IQ privilege” they really cannot even conceive of the term, never mind deal with the implications.
My views aren’t really part of another bundle of radical beliefs, my own analysis is that public money spent on education would be better spent on welfare payments or wage subsidies. This is kind of socialist!
My point is that some claims in social science are (a) unambiguously true; (b) very costly if people believe the precise opposite; (c) relevant for any debate about the huge share of private resources that government confiscates and redistributes.
If you don't understand group differences in cognitive and behavioural traits (not just intelligence) then the world is significantly harder to understand. You can understand these things and still be a conservative, or a libertarian or a socialist, an Azerbaijani irredentist or a Moonie, but you will significantly better at applying that ideology to the real world without disastrous consequences.
Imagine if large proportions of otherwise intelligent and informed people knew literally nothing about economics, as in you could say the words 'supply and demand' and it wouldn't ring a bell. Imagine that talking about supply and demand could get you fired from your job, kicked off Facebook, and, if you lived in many European countries, arrested. Imagine, then, that an edgy liberaltarian told you it didn't really matter because a lot of smart people already know about supply and demand and are just too savvy to go on about it, whereas all the people talking about supply and demand are internet weirdos.
*
"Imagine a leftist coming along and saying that all you have to do is show Sailer that Latinos don’t litter all that much, and then he’ll support immigration! "
Well that would be hard for a fairly obvious reason, but Steve Sailer actually writes a lot about how Hispanic behaviour is a lot more amenable than Black behaviour to top-down intervention.
*
"I’ve noticed that on the right, the more individuals accept group differences between races, the more they want society organized to satisfy the preferences of the worst whites and make excuses for their behavior."
This is a legitimate criticism.
“People who get really into group differences and put it at the center of their politics don’t actually care all that much about the science. I think for the most part they just think foreigners and other races are icky.”
People are routinely brutalized by blacks and other low iq races. Then they see them lavished by every institution, and themselves blamed for every ill. I think you are belittling the indignities that many whites face, and will face to a greater extent as the demographics of the country change.
You also dont engage with zach goldberg’s research on in group preferences (ie: all groups love themselves and hate whites the most).
On the open borders front: youve never outlined a viable strategy by which politicians can play different groups off against each other indefinitely to prevent the forming of coalitions for racial chavism. Weve seen with left wing politics in america that hating and expropriating whites is a viable shelling point, able to unite both gays and muslims in one coalition.
Most likely outcome is we get more leftism, more resources expended on babysitting low iq populations, harder to get things done (like starting business) due to lower social trust and increased regulations/ethnic patronage, and inexorably declining living standards.
Despite being a realist in other respects, you dont incorporate into your worldview the reality that some portion of the population will inevitably be xenophobic and resistant to demographic transformation.
If the requirement for right wing pro market political success in a diverse america is the total absence of any right wing xenophobia (so as not to offend immigrant sensibilities—which seems to be your theory as to why more latinos and asians dont vote republican) then that is very bleak
Should be mentioned that there is a multicultural country where racial differences are openly accepted. Here is Lee Kuan Yew:
“The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. Ths are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow.
… Supposing we had hidden the truth and taken the American approach and said, all men are equal. Then they (The less able or well-off) will demand equal results. And when the results are not equal, they will demand more equal treatment.“
> Steve Sailer is insightful on many things, but if you assign him an article on housing, littering, or any issue really, it will just turn into a tirade against immigration. I searched Steve’s blog for “littering” and practically every result on the first page was somehow connected to Latinos or immigrants.
> Imagine a leftist coming along and saying that all you have to do is show Sailer that Latinos don’t litter all that much, and then he’ll support immigration! Obviously the whole littering obsession is a pretense, just like his solutions for housing and global warming
It's difficult to see how you could come to this conclusion on Steve Sailer's views on littering after reading any of his several posts on the subject of Latino littering. They have a very consistent theme and recommendation, as follows:
1. American whites used to litter all the time, which was bad.
2. Public awareness campaigns successfully shamed them into not doing that, which was good.
3. Latinos currently litter all the time, which is bad.
4. We should shame them until they stop doing that.
The recommendation is always to pressure them into not littering and never to stop them from being wherever they are. The tirade is against the taboo on mentioning that littering is a problem specific to them, because that prevents the shaming campaign from working or, really, beginning.
Richard, I think you have the chain of causation backwards. Many people become White Identitarians AFTER finding out the truth about HBD and witnessing the real pain and suffering caused by denying reality. The lie has to end.
If immigration threatened western institutions, the blob would have stopped it long ago. Immigration destabilizes western societies (assimilation is no longer the norm), which increases the reliance on western institutions.
Come on man, keep up.
"shut up about race and iq"
writes article about race and iq
>Liberalism naturally appeals to many fewer people than conservatism or leftism, but it stays in the game because, of the three great ideologies, it’s easily the one most likely to be vindicated by real world events, since it is correct.
You could call it the "Efficient Ideology Hypothesis."
Obviously in a multi-ideology split, pure Liberalism will have the least adherents. This is usually used as an argument against Liberalism, framing the GOP as 'markets aren't moral' meaning markets that Jesus approves of, and leftists as being "markets don't have heart" meaning that you're supposed to care about effects of the poor and downtrodden first and foremost.
Which are attacks that one can make by the way. It's true that markets frequently trigger cons, and markets do in fact increase inequality. But Liberalism still features in the center, center-right, and center-left because over time its track record makes it so. Rational-minded people can't deny either the pure logic of Liberalism or its track record (combined, these two features make Liberalism irrefutable as an idea.)
People ask 'why isn't the US a pure social democracy' which is an interesting historical question, but a question that is more interesting is "why aren't European countries entirely communist at this point?" It's that in the 21st century, rationally-minded people are compelled to accept the logic of Liberalism and therefore even in Europe they don't stray too far away and if anything are back-sliding towards more Liberalism.
The thing is, people have already shut up about race and IQ. It's literally taboo to even bring up the idea in most polite company, including among mainstream conservatives. It's also banned from discussion on most major platforms. Do you see Jared Taylor on YouTube? If it's just relegated to a few guys and anons on X, why the big screed? You're acting like HBD talking points are becoming mainstream and I just don't see it.
Also how do you square this with the way you talk about Palestinians? Demographics aren't destiny you know, Israel can absorb all of Gaza and just win them over with ideas, right?
“Countries that adopt libertarian ideas become like Dubai or Singapore”
Although open borders is not really libertarian, these countries do not have open borders, so they are not fully “libertarian” (in the sense that you mean); nor do they have full private property. If they did have open borders, they would likely be swamped with low IQ poor people and their countries would be irrevocably changed (and probably for the worse). But maybe the continued absence of democracy would keep the problems under wraps. The US does not have open borders either, so we (thankfully) have not yet experienced swamping.
The US & West achieved incredible prosperity as racially homogeneous nations (its the reason we are a magnet for immigrants). That doesn’t mean we can’t continue to grow economically as a multi-racial nation but your argument against whites maintaining their homeland is primarily built on PC arguments that their preferences are somehow “wrong” because they’re “collectivist” (a borderline tautology)—as if de jure ownership of streets, roads, etc. is somehow inferior to state ownership. Support for mass non-white immigration is an elite project akin to the other faddish elite projects that you rightly ridicule in your article. Ironically, you take the stupid excusers of J6 to task but support anti-democratic views when your views align with the elites.
Whites have been relentlessly browbeaten against racism by state schools, Hollywood, tv, etc., so, yes, many would be comfortable with a multi-racial (upscale!) neighborhood after these Soviet-style propaganda efforts, but if the propaganda ceased and the anti-discrimination laws were ended, it’s hard to say what an actual libertarian society would look like in terms of non-white immigration if all roads, streets, etc. were privatized. You say white nationalists are afraid to find out but everything the anti-racists have achieved has been done through statism and relentless PC propaganda. The anti-racists are the ones who would be afraid if statist PC propaganda had never been so relentlessly pushed, anti-discrimination laws never passed (due to anti-racist propaganda), and more privatization achieved. There is irony in a “based” libertarian pushing a PC view on race long promoted by statist schools and loony PC progressives.
MacDonald has already rebutted the particular arguments you made against his views. If you were familiar with them, you likely would have included them in your criticisms. Yes, Jews marry out in significant numbers but that doesn’t mean there aren’t significant numbers of ethnocentric Jews. It’s truly absurd to look at Zionists, Israel, Orthodox communities, etc. and not see Jews who pursue a their group interest. How did they survive for thousands of years? Do you think they have taken no proactive measures as a group to ensure their safety? But if you did acknowledge their ethnocentrism, you would appear to be blatantly hypocritical in denouncing white nationalism while providing de facto support for Jewish nationalism. But I do appreciate the fact that if whites created a religion around being white, you would wish them well as long as they didn’t resist the transformation of the US into a multiracial libertarian paradise.
Singapore and Dubai are intensely conservative places. The rambling screed is a shambles intellectually. I'll respond substantively to two points in the essay, IQ and groups in social order.
1. Best science today says IQ is 50% heritable, 50% nurture. Recent science has shown massive impacts of infant environment and experience with parents as crucial, and may lead to more than 50% being nurture and epigenetics. A simple example is the number of words a child hears spoken to them in the first 5 years of their lives seems very correlated with IQ, and there seems to be a developmental phase early on that is impacted by being spoken too. Eye contact and physical contact are equally as important. I saw a great Ted talk by a scientist focused on this a couple of years ago, we may yet make real progress on understanding how to optimize cognitive development. It was early days but it made so much sense.
2. Groups - While reading this I wanted to scream, "read E. O. Wilson's The Social Conquest of Earth for God's sake!". Intergroup competition is THE engine of human success as a species. Dawkins is wrong, kin selection theory does not explain human dominance as a species well at all, nor our evolution. Group selection theory does. Human's are by orders of magnitude the most sophisticated social creatures to ever exist. Once one understands the centrality of human's forming 'ingroups' and developing 'traditions' and culture and how they evolve in a competitive intergroup setting, it can't be forgotten.
The suspicious tone about 'ingroups' is just silly. They are important due to the high trust that exists between members of these groups, and the concomitant private social environment they have in that ingroup. In say one's Church, it's expected to help each other out in reasonable ways. Borrow the lawnmower, cuz mine broke, check in on an older parent while the rest of the family is away. Family membership involves more trust and more privacy. Ingroups allow us to deal with many aspects of life in better ways due to shared resources and trust. We need to be part of ingroups to flourish in a free society. Thankfully, in the West we have the liberty to move in and out of certain ingroups (job, neighborhoods, schools, etc,), which results in the ability to re-invent oneself even. It certainly provides many 'ladders' for people to climb.
Conservatives are about social order, not mere 'nationalism' and 'religion'. Ordered liberty is what works for a society to thrive, and order must precede liberty. It's a necessary, but insufficient, condition for liberty. The banal and trite ways these and other hefty ideas are bandied about in this essay is quite disappointing. Is the author reaching beyond his grasp? Or does this essay just need a strong edit?
This is a very Haidtian analysis (think of the elephant and the rider) that is probably broadly correct. However, I would just add a couple of points to provide some nuance.
First is that most academics are monomaniacal obsessives about one particular topic. This is what academia selects for and rewards. (People who know about a lot of different topics become essayists and op-ed writers). Academia should have a home for people who are obsessed about any topic -- so long as it is true -- and even sometimes when it is not. The fact that academia doesn't provide a home for these scholars is itself an example of institutional failure.
Second, the treatment that these scholars have had from mainstream academia may have influenced their political views. If they had not been run out of scholarly institutions, and were able to receive stable salaries commensurate with their academic skill, their political views might be vastly different. (Remember, you are writing from the point of view of an entrepreneur and writer who has the luxury of a stable income and can see the benefit of free markets, because you are the beneficiary of them. Not everyone has this privilege.)
HBD is such a taboo subject that reasonable people who believe it have a large incentive to remain quiet. This means that we've ceded a monopoly on the subject to unhinged racialists. Your experiences aren't wrong and mirror my own, but you are casting a very wide net here. White nationalists are on average dumber and less effective than liberals who deny HBD, so the fear that by being honest about group differences we will empower white nationalist arguments seems like paranoia.
"Truth in and of itself is never a good reason to talk about something.
I think you need to substantiate this point. The problem with white nationalists is that most of what they say is incorrect. Even when they are right, they engage in innumeracy and exaggerate the social costs of low IQ people. Trying to hide from the topic just gives more legitimacy to the racialists, because IQ is in fact real.