Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Christian HBD’ Category

A reader wrote asking what might be done in his local church to counter the adoption mania being pushed on so many families.  My edited reply is below:

1. Racial differences and ethnicity are subtle statistical phenomena.  Most people (and especially theology-oriented people) are unable to think beyond binary “right or wrong” issues.  For example, because blind racial supremacy is obviously wrong (e.g. “All blacks are inferior to all whites”), they think that means that the opposite must be true, i.e. blind racial egalitarianism.  Very few people are going to understand the principles of a normal distribution that differs as to mean and standard deviation.  When I was in engineering school, it was this very concept (computing the areas under a normal distribution curve) in an introductory engineering course that washed out about a quarter of the freshmen.  I can virtually guarantee no minister is going to take the time to understand this, and many of them simply cannot.  Yet because of the cultural bias they feel qualified to speak to things they really don’t understand.

2. On top of the subtle mathematical reality of racial differences, we have to grapple with another hard-to-understand statistical-ethical concept, the “tragedy of the commons.”  Adopting one more child from Africa means the world for that child, and has almost no marginal effect on the rest of society.  However, multiply that one hundred million times over and you have a problem.  Our productive, Western society is like a giant commons (a field where anyone can graze their cattle).  Everyone thinks the resource is inexhaustible and bears no personal cost for depleting the resource.  Or to reference another analogy, the old starfish story: a man is throwing washed up starfish into the ocean, is challenged by someone saying he is wasting his time, because there are so many starfish.  He replies “well it makes a difference for this one.”  You see the same reasoning going on with those who adopt. The problem with this analogy is that everything has an opportunity cost, yet a third subtle statistical-economic hard-to-understand concept.  If I spend 12 hours a day throwing starfish back into the ocean, I am not spending time with my family or earning any money to support them.  Similarly, most people see that they would be foolish to adopt 20 African orphans (though I’m sure there’s a family out there who will do this), because there would be costs to their family.  Well, the same costs exist with one adopted child as with twenty.  Unless you’re the Duggars or have fertility issues, most families have a practical limit as to how many children they can handle.  Adopting a child ultimately means one less natural child.

3. I don’t think most people will ever understand rationally why this is bad, anymore than people understood, until fairly recently, exactly why eating rotten meat was bad for you.  The stench was enough to stop the behavior, not some abstract germ theory.  Many white people have a genetic defect, which is an unusually low level of ethnocentrism, akin to a predilection for eating rotten meat (actually, Swedes DO eat rotten fish, and like it).  I think this trait was bred out of us due to our isolation in Northern Europe, where suspicion of others became a liability when everyone was your third cousin and you needed exceptional community-level cooperation to survive the harsh winter.  Some white people have the instinct, some don’t.  Those who are wild-eyed fanatics about adopting you can never convince.  Our focus must remain on those who do have the instinct, but feel pressure to conform.  Much of my writing is an effort to produce an apologetic that will provide cover for those with healthy instincts.  A lot of this is limited to Northern Europeans.  I have some Cajun and Native American blood, and most of my European heritage is Celtic, not Nordic, so I believe this accounts for the relatively strong ethnocentric instinct I have.  You rarely see Italian, French or Greek whites doing this sort of thing.

4. There is also an enormous amount of pride and moral posturing in regards to adoption.  White people carry around a lot of white guilt from decades of propaganda, and what better way to alleviate that than to adopt a black.  See, we’re not racist, really!  Even better if a nasty racist actually objects to your adoption!  You’re so non-racist you’re being persecuted for it!  This moral posturing, supported by the entire establishment, church and state, makes it impossible to attack the problem directly through reason.  The more the “racist” reasons with someone, the more holier than thou they feel.  All false belief systems give a great amount of pleasure to their adherents because it makes them feel like a member of an exclusive group.  In fact, it is precisely the irrationality that so effectively separates the chosen from the “gentiles” so to speak.

Another issue: we both like to be part of theologically robust churches, which typically means smarter churches full of middle class professionals.  These people tend to be the very ones who have the wrong instincts.  Very few country churches with a “normal” sampling of white people are jumping on this bandwagon.

5. The best we can do at this point is to attack the problem sideways.  Some sideways objections I’ve covered:

a. Adoption is expensive, bad stewardship.  If you don’t own your house, you have no business adopting for $20k.  You are choosing to keep debt rather than pay it off, and God does not bless debt.  Dave Ramsey makes this very argument when people ask him if they should do something optional or pay off their house.  He puts it to them this way, “if you owned your house, would you borrow money against it to do this?  Because it’s the same question.”

b. Adoption is baby stealing.  Point out examples of corruption in Third World countries, where babies are being sold to Westerners who think they’re adopting:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/05/05/pm-dark-side-chinese-adoptions/

c. Adoption doesn’t solve anything.  Roy Beck’s “Gumballs” video is an excellent formulation of this argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Roy does a great job of showing us how to present our message in the right way, as a caring, respectable white person.  Roy is a good Methodist, so he understands messaging to upper middle class white people well.

Adoption is a not a practical solution.  The solution to the world’s problems must be implemented in those countries.

What you’re trying to do is provide a fig leaf “excuse” for those with the proper instincts to opt out of the massive pressure the churches are putting on people to adopt.

6. This may sound depressing, that all we can do is mitigate the mania.  History teaches us all manias have a way of self-destructing.  During the Tulip bubble, when a tulip bulb cost more than a home in Amsterdam, the best course was to not buy tulips.  There was no hope in the midst of the mania to stop it.  Humans are too irrational.  I believe we are at the tail end of a multi-decade economic mania, and it is natural in flush times for people to believe that common sense wisdom no longer applies.  Adopting African babies is every bit as logical as investing in a dot-com with a sock puppet commercial during the Super Bowl.  There is ample evidence that much is below the surface.  During the early 90’s recession, David Duke and Pat Buchanan almost broke out into the mainstream.  During this recession, the Tea Party spontaneously erupted.  Ethnocentrism tends to come back with a vengeance when people lose their faith in the free lunch and permanent boom.

7. The adoptions themselves will eventually provide a deterrent.  Inter-racially adopted blacks are just going to have all kinds of problems that nice upper middle class white people aren’t prepared for.  I think when these cute little babies grow up into sexually mature Africans in about 15 years you’re going to see people become more cautious.  To make another analogy, a lot of homeschooling families we know, in addition to being adoption enthusiasts, are home birth, anti-vaccine and raw milk enthusiasts (and if you believe in these things, I apologize, but these are my opinions).  You can do something foolish for a long time with no consequence.  But eventually, somebody’s kid is going to have cerebral palsy because a midwife couldn’t perform a c-section.  Eventually, the nice farmer you’re buying raw milk from is going to have an anthrax outbreak in his cattle.  Eventually, some of these kids are going to die from previously eradicated diseases because the parents weren’t wise enough to vaccinate in a country filled with Third World immigrants who handle food.  Then the enthusiasm for these things will wane.  Louis Pasteur was not a tool of big pharma: he was a Christian who developed vaccines and pasteurization processes to keep people from dying from preventable causes.  Similarly, our ancestors were not evil racists who just wanted to keep black people down; there were reasons behind their attitudes that conformed to reality.  But it can go on for a long while.  Man is depraved in every faculty, and the best we can often do is two steps forward, one step back.

One of the big problems driving all of this irrationality is the emotion-driven pseudo-spirituality.  These folks may claim they have real theology, but to a man (or woman) they really believe in private revelation.  God “revealed” to them that they shouldn’t vaccinate, or they “feel comfort as a mother” in feeding their kids raw milk.  They turn the birthing process into almost a sacrament of spirituality, instead of the serious medical procedure it actually is.  The popular theologians, even the ones who claim to be robust, promote this kind of reasoning, and the same kind of vacuous spirituality drives the adoption mania.  We have yet to fully purge out the navel-gazing pietism even in these supposedly conservative churches.  BTW, a great popular book discussing this is “Just Do Something”:

http://www.amazon.com/Just-Do-Something-Decision-Without/dp/0802458386/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1299167543&sr=8-1

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

My knowledge of human biodiversity is a constant comfort in my family’s homeschooling efforts.  I’ve seen many parents stress themselves out about academics, and the sheer plethora of materials and teaching methods are overwhelming.  By necessity, women like my wife are usually the primary homeschooling parent, and one thing I’ve noticed about Christian homeschooling mothers is the deep sense of guilt and anxiety they seem to have concerning their homeschooling competence.  Add to this the selection of extroverted “Perfect Mommy” (if you believe their blog) homeschool bloggers and it’s enough to make any mother feel inadequate.  Unlike men, women don’t seem to be able to write off obsessive outliers as weirdos (men, for better or worse, have stronger egos typically), but rather doubt themselves and their decisions based on a blog post she read about how someone’s four year old is supposedly learning calculus with play-doh while doing copywork out of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

I try to comfort my wife with scientific reality.  Among my conclusions:

1. All of these various methods of homeschooling, whether Charlotte Mason, Classical, Unit Study, whatever, NONE OF THEM have been subjected to a scientific controlled study documenting whether one or the other is better (and no study would likely show any difference between reasonably robust curriculums because of #2).  All of the “evidence” presented is anecdotal and useless, or based on an elaborate system of untestable hypotheses about how learning is supposed to occur.  My family chooses to do a more-or-less classical-based curriculum, but that’s based on a personal preference (specifically that my children are exposed to the heritage of their civilization and don’t become just narrow-minded Biblicists, i.e. Bible idolaters who reject the notion that all truth is God’s truth).  I have no illusions that my choice of curriculum will make a difference in any child’s academic outcomes.  I am also prepared to abandon our curriculum choice if it seems in the best interest of a child, the family or their mother.

2. Human Biodiversity: identical twin studies have pretty much proven that intelligence is about 70% genetically determined.  Of the remaining 30%, about 70% of that is based on non-genetic developmental biology, i.e. proper maternal nutrition during pregnancy, breastfeeding, sufficient iron intake during childhood, a safe and stable home environment etc.  That leaves 9% up for grabs for our homeschooling efforts, which is approximately the same maximum difference in IQ outcomes you see for identical twins (i.e. same genetics) raised in different homes.  Do your best, as in all things, but there’s no need to shorten your life with anxiety over homeschooling.  E. O. Wilson, the world’s foremost living biologist, put it this way, as summarized by Tom Wolfe:

Every human brain, he says, is born not as a blank tablet (a tabula rasa) waiting to be filled in by experience but as “an exposed negative waiting to be slipped into developer fluid.” You can develop the negative well or you can develop it poorly, but either way you are going to get precious little that is not already imprinted on the film. The print is the individual’s genetic history, over thousands of years of evolution, and there is not much anybody can do about it. Furthermore, says Wilson, genetics determine not only things such as temperament, role preferences, emotional responses, and levels of aggression, but also many of our most revered moral choices, which are not choices at all in any free–will sense but tendencies imprinted in the hypothalamus and limbic regions of the brain, a concept expanded upon in 1993 in a much–talked–about book, The Moral Sense, by James Q. Wilson (no kin to Edward O.).

Science is proving Calvinism, folks.  There is no free will.

Don’t let the evolution word above scare you.  That’s just Wilson’s worldview poking out (to the extent he is not talking about microevolution), not the nugget of his scientific work.  Wilson is a brilliant Alabama native who did his research work on the world of ants.  One of the results of Wilson’s work was his finding that ants exhibit extremely complex behaviors naturally, without any sort of training.  This breakthrough research showed that genetics can not only determine physical characteristics of organisms, but also quite complex social behaviors, which culminated in Wilson’s theory of sociobiology.

Whether we believe it is by evolution or design, Wilson showed that genetics have a major impact on behavior.  Wilson is hated by Marxists, for he destroys their social theory of the blank slate.  If inequalities between people are due to inherent differences and not exploitation, then the whole Marxist theory collapses.

Interestingly, many Christians, under the influence of biology deniers like Ken Ham (who essentially denies microevolution in humans with his illogical and unbiblical assertion that we are all equal), have now adopted the Marxist theory of the mind’s development.  I prefer to relax and know that God has taken care of the details in a genetic code that I and my children inherited through no effort of our own.

In short, you don’t have to “let go and let God.”  You can let go because God already did.  Your child’s genetic code has already been providentially decreed.

As I’ve covered elsewhere in my body of work, this reality of the overwhelming role of genetics also has implications for marriage and adoption.  In short: genetics matter.  Marry well and have your own children if you can.  The Christians of Jane Austen’s world did not talk about “good breeding” because they were racist, atheist evolutionists.  They simply noticed God’s design, in both animals and humans, before it was crimethink to recognize human differences.

3. Moral Development: This is the big area that your parenting efforts can impact.  Again, this is subject to a Pareto effect.  Assuming your family practices Christian morals, 80% of the benefit of homeschooling is that your children are not subject to the moral sewer of the public (and, for the most part, private) schools.  80% of what’s remaining will come from your direct instruction, discipline and your children’s observation of your moral behavior, and their genetics (see Dobson’s The Strong-Willed Child for references on how “difficult” children are hard coded that way from birth, and the distinction can only be mitigated by stronger parenting, not eliminated).  When you walk out of a store with something you didn’t pay for, your child seeing you walking back in to pay for it is ten times more powerful than their memorizing the catechism questions on “Thou shalt not steal.”  The Bible speaks of moral development as a casual, continuous and largely oral process of discussing God’s Law with your children just as a normal part of life.  And this is yet another reason not to worry about their religious academic work.  Make a reasonable choice based on your particular Christian beliefs and let go of the anxiety.

4. Political Economy and Worldview: This is an area where I feel a particular conviction.  My comments above are based on an assumption of curriculum equivalence and reasonableness.  Any popular homeschooling math book will probably be fine, as math is not a controversial subject.  However, since so many Christians have huge gaping holes in their worldview when it comes to the Human Equality Delusion, and this delusion has such a serious impact on the structural rot of our society, I am largely on my own in developing antidotes to these delusions so my children can truly understand how the world works.  I am working towards these ends.  My best idea so far is to particularly avoid contemporary religious writers.  When someone like John Piper writes with the authority of a minister of God, and presents ideas as true (for example, the Human Equality Delusion) which are not true and are outside the domain of his expertise, children can be influenced to believe bad ideas because they are coming from a religious source.

I would much prefer my children get their doctrine and instruction from theologians who lived before the Equality cult became predominant, or who actively fought it during their lifetimes.  The best authors seem to be those from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, theologians like Warfield, Thornwell, Van Til, Dabney, Rushdoony and to some extent, even C.S. Lewis (Lewis’ epilogue to The Screwtape Letters, “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” skewers the Equality cult).  While many earlier theologians were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment idea of the blank slate, these later men were exposed to a more developed theory of genetics and biology which better informed their worldviews, and had the luxury of digesting these truths of nature into a solidly Christian worldview before the current oppressive regime of political correctness took hold.

At some point I will publish a comprehensive list of recommended historical sources and textbooks for developing a proper worldview.  Since my children are young (our oldest boy is eight), I do not want to recommend anything we haven’t yet used.

Read Full Post »

From my children’s catechism:

How does God reveal Himself?

In His Word and in nature.

From the leading US obstetric journal:

Adverse perinatal outcomes among interracial couples in the United States.

Getahun D, Ananth CV, Selvam N, Demissie K.

Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, 08901, USA. getahuda@umdnj.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between parental race and stillbirth and adverse perinatal and infant outcomes.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the 1995-2001 linked birth and infant death files that are composed of live births and fetal and infant deaths in the United States. The study included singleton births delivered at 20 or more weeks of gestation with a fetus weighing 500 g or more (N = 21,005,786). Parental race was categorized as mother white-father white, mother white-father black, mother black-father white, and mother black-father black. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between parental race and risks of stillbirth (at > or = 20 weeks), small for gestational age (defined as birth weight < 5th and < 10th percentile for gestational age), and early neonatal (< 7 days), late neonatal (7-27 days), and postneonatal (28-364 days) mortality. All analyses were adjusted for the confounding effects of maternal age, education, trimester at which prenatal care began, parity, marital status, and smoking during pregnancy.

RESULTS: Although risks varied across parental race categories, stillbirth was associated with a higher-than-expected risk for interracial couples: mother white-father black, relative risk (RR) 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.26) and mother black-father white, RR 1.37 (95% CI 1.21-1.54) compared with mother white-father white parents. The RR for stillbirth was even higher among mother black-father black parents (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.62-1.72). The overall patterns of association for small for gestational age births (< 5th and < 10th percentile) and early neonatal mortality were similar to those seen for stillbirth.

CONCLUSION: There is an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes for interracial couples, including stillbirth, small for gestational age infants, and neonatal mortality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2.

Read Full Post »

Advice to Young Men

I recently gave some advice to a young man who shares my Kinist convictions.  I told him that if a marginalized group wants to become mainstream, it needs to avoid any incidental weirdness to its core values.  The psychological warfare perpetrated by the SPLC and others sometimes makes one reactionary, which ends up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of nationalists as angry, strange men to be avoided.

This is particularly important for any young man seeking a mate.  Women are not naturally political like men for the most part, so anyone who expresses a non-mainstream opinion on an issue as touchy as race is automatically suspect.  You don’t want to exacerbate this disadvantage by being quirky and strange in other ways, for example, like displaying flags associated with low status, using the “n” word, etc.  Here’s why:

Women aren’t really interested in your politics per-se (and if they love you and come from a Christian anti-feminist background, will come to agree with you naturally as God created them to be a helpmeet).  Women have a problem: strange, creepy men.  The male sex has more genetic variance in expression, and one of the roles women perform is to weed genetically unworthy males from the gene pool so that their defective genes are not further propagated.  I believe many of these instincts are biological, and what seems to particularly bother women is any hint of an autism spectrum disorder, which is why women generally find men of above average intelligence but with normal social skills more attractive than highly intelligent men with a semi-autistic “geeky” demeanor.

This is important, as the autism spectrum disorders, while an offshoot of high intelligence, also have high liabilities: lack of normal emotional behavior, obsessive tendencies that may threaten the man’s ability to focus on provision for the family and/or developing the relationships within the family, lack of social skills and tact (which hurt social status and since so much is who you know, also one’s earning power).  Intelligence is subject to a declining returns curve; a man of 120 IQ and normal social skills is a better mate (and will produce healthier, more normal children, and likely earn more) than an awkward geek with an IQ of 140.

Let me give you an example of what women have to watch out for.  Recently, I visited my parents’ home.  In retirement, my father has become somewhat of a Ford Mustang aficionado, joining the local club and attending car shows.  In my dad’s case (besides the fact he’s already married), this is not anything that really interests a woman but also fairly normal for a man of his age; it’s a hobby he enjoys but he doesn’t take it seriously.  As part of his hobby, he subscribes to Mustang Monthly.  Featured in this month’s issue is a spread about a strange man from Pennsylvania who has spent all of his money his entire adult life on Mustangs and Mustang paraphernalia, and even went to the extreme of building a custom home to house his cars, such that he can live among and with the Mustangs.  Here’s a picture of this interesting male specimen:

The self-written article provides more details:

In the automotive world, most vehicles get relegated to a garage or carport. The special ones gain entrance into museums, dealership displays, or private warehouses. I wanted something different. Mine were to come into a house with me so I could actually live with them. It wasn’t a question of “why?” but “why not?”

By that time, there was a small problem. I was buying collector cars and having to pay rent for both their storage and my own personal living space. It was getting expensive, but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

In late 1999, I put down a deposit on an ’00 Cobra R, but the dealership lost out in the lottery to get one. It was a blessing in disguise. Instead, that money went into a three-acre parcel of land. I then hired an architect to help me design a simple, efficient ranch home to enclose both me and my cars.

Things didn’t happen overnight or come easily. Opposition came from neighboring property owners who feared I’d litter my yard with old parts or rusty, rotting hulks. They envisioned loud exhaust rumblings at all hours of the night and frequent trailers coming up the lane. In other words, they saw a hot-rod bachelor who was going to lower property values.

Truth be told, many people, including my parents, thought I was a little south of sanity for pursuing this. My father, an interior designer for 52 years, never partook in a project like this. My mother knew early on that I marched to the beat of a different drum, but even this seemed “over the top” in her book.

I’ll admit the first night there, I sat on the porch past midnight staring at the stars and thinking back on all the sacrifices I made to make this “dream” happen-the 80-hour work weeks working three jobs; no fancy vacations; skipped or simple brown bag lunches; no cable television, computer, or cell phone; and no wife, kids, or pets (women can be much more expensive than any car). Please note: I’m not a surgeon, stockbroker, CEO, or lottery winner. I’m just a dedicated, hard-working guy who loves cars and sets goals to achieve them.

More crucial though, they need to know that going your own way in life is more important than following the herd. I have a Porsche brochure that sums up my mantra: “It’s only when you don’t try to conform that you can be the one thing that really matters-yourself.”

God has programmed women to automatically reject males like this.  This is why it’s so important to be as normal as possible in every area of your life outside of your core values.  Don’t pigeon-hole yourself as a freak.  Unlike this guy, who definitely has some variant of Asperger syndrome, you can help it!

Jane Austen nailed it.  Women seek men with “liberal” personalities because it is these men they feel will do the best job at loving them, providing for their families and not abandoning these first responsibilities in pursuit of obsessions, political or otherwise.  I happen to think women are right; their pre-rational instincts lead them to the right conclusions in a normal, healthy society.  Don’t be so reactionary to the defects of our society that you end up alienating this female instinct.  Be a normal, friendly clubbable guy who just happens to want his grandkids to look like his grandparents, in possession of the same country.

Read Full Post »

If I can get to the heart of the anti-human-biodiversity sentiment of many Christians, on some level I think it is a denial of God’s sovereignty and Providence in the area of biology, particularly biology among groups.

Here are some propositions nearly all would agree with:

1. Some people seem more prone to certain sins, and in some cases there is a genetic basis for this.  Bipolarism, which has a strong genetic component, is one example; these individuals have a much harder time controlling themselves when manic, with drug use, promiscuity and abuse of family members more likely.  The sins are still sins, but there is a contributing factor, fallen genetics, and these genetics are not equally distributed among all individuals and families.  It is not denying the sufficiency of the Gospel to recommend that bipolar individuals take appropriate medication to minimize their pre-existing tendencies.

2. Similarly, alcoholism is largely genetic.  Drunkenness is a sin for both the alcoholic and non-alcoholic, yet the alcoholic is much more likely to commit this sin due to genetic factors beyond their control.  The remedy, recommending alcoholics abstain completely and avoid temptation, does not deny the sufficiency of the Gospel to save alcoholics.

3. Moving on to groups, it is self-evident that sexual sins of all kinds are much more prevalent in men that women.  This is largely due to male testosterone levels, which are genetically based.  Yet sexual sin is equally sin for men and women.  It is not denying the sufficiency of the Gospel to recommend men take precautions to avoid temptation in this area.

None of the above bothers most politically correct Christians.  What bothers them is the idea that certain genetic predispositions are distributed unevenly among different ethnic or racial groups.  More precisely, I think it is the degraded conditions of blacks that make them most uncomfortable.  As I told a friend recently, it’s a really hard pill to swallow to accept that black societies are the way they are through Providence.  Black societies consist of people made in the image of God that live in self-made conditions not fit for animals; precious little babies starve to death because their fathers waste all of their time and money loafing around, spending whatever little money they have on cigarettes, prostitution and gambling.  Whenever the Christian religion enters a black society, it is quickly degraded into various forms of voodoo, or else, as in the case of Africa today, morphs into the heretical prosperity gospel, where wealthy charismatic preachers milk their poor, pathetic flocks for what little resources they have so they can live in luxury.  How can the leaders of black societies live with themselves, as they enjoy obscene luxury while their own brothers and sisters are hungry, thirsty and diseased?

It is too much to take in.  The PC Christian wants an easy solution: just convert Africa, and all its inherent problems would be solved.  That African Christians still live in squalor is ignored.  The real solution for Africa, however, is summed up by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.  He said that we cannot hope to teach Africa the law of Christ until they learn the law of Adam: “By the sweat of your brow you shall earn your bread.”

Until property rights are respected in Africa, and this only likely under the leadership of another race, it will be extremely difficult to make true converts, as only property rights provide a positive feedback loop enabling the development of virtue.  Any conversions, and to be sure there are some, will be going against the grain of the society instead of with it.  The early Church, for example, after some initial persecution, generally had their property rights respected in the Roman Empire; the Pax Romana was a key enabler of the growth of the early Church.  As the fruits of self-control and self-discipline borne of the Holy Spirit came to harvest, the society around them came to see the nobility of the Christian faith relative to decadent pagan Rome.  In Africa, a single Christian farmer who diligently works to provide for his family has much less assurance that he will not be killed or stolen from.  Without the rule of law and property, conversions are going to be very hard to come by.

Furthermore, even in African societies where property rights are respected, there are likely to be limitations on what they can achieve from our perspective, simply due to the fact that they are different than us.  The PC Christian view, then, is somewhat inherently white supremacist (put this in your pocket: when they call you a racist, call them a PCWS, a politically correct white supremacist).  Their premise is unless blacks produce societies every bit as functional as whites, this necessarily means a denial of the Gospel.  In other words, unless blacks become culturally white (from their perspective white culture is simply the universal Christian culture), they haven’t been sufficiently converted.  To pick on RC Sproul, Jr., it seems their picture of an ideal society consists of a group of coffee-colored people of no particular race who go around wearing kilts and generally exhibiting a rural, Celtic culture.  Conveniently for RC, his ethnic culture is simply redefined to be Christian culture.  This is why RC endorses adopting blacks instead of seeking to convert them in their own cultures: from his white supremacist perspective, blacks can only be sufficiently converted when totally isolated from their indigenous culture.

I think the PC crowd may have an insufficient appreciation for both Providence and grace.  Unless blacks behave exactly like whites, they can’t really be saved, since the more virtuous aspects of white behavior, in their view, are entirely due to their conversion and sanctification.  While the behaviors exhibited by blacks, even nominally Christian ones, may be more depraved than whites, it is still entirely possible, and likely, that Christian blacks are showing fruits of salvation, just on a relative scale.  They are less depraved than they otherwise would be given their genetic limitations.  Yet even once converted, their limitations are such that it may be wise, from a political perspective, to limit their numbers in any Western society one wishes to preserve.

And despite all of this, God’s incredible grace can still save them.  The black murderer on death row, who killed someone in a fit of rage borne of low intelligence and higher testosterone levels, can still love Jesus and be part of the elect.  Relative to Christ, good little Christian white folks have no more saving virtue than the black murderer.  Yet it is likely wise (if one is interested in preserving Western Civilization), given crime statistics, to limit the number of blacks in a society, even Christian ones, because of their enhanced proclivity to crime.

It’s as if the politically correct Christians want to say that unless blacks act exactly like good little Christian white folks, they can’t be saved, since one of the proofs of salvation, inherent to their view, is that groups of Christians of all colors will have exactly the same proclivities.  Unless the endgame is a multi-ethnic Thomas Kinkade painting, the Gospel is insufficient!

It is on this point that I must admit some sympathy for the writings of the black Reformed author Anthony Bradley.  An undercurrent in his writing is resentment towards the white middle-class culture he is forced to more-or-less assimilate to in order to remain employed in white Christian circles.  He wants to be culturally black, which is a healthy instinct.  I disagree with his remedy of trying to remake the white church more to his own liking, but I respect the sentiment of his ethnic solidarity.  I can easily see where a black man would find the assumption of many white Christians that black Christianity must manifest itself in the same way as white Christianity to be insulting.  The proper thing, of course, would be for Bradley to move to Haiti or Africa (or downtown Detroit) to work for the Gospel among his own people, expressing that faith in a way that is natural for them.

I think if you look at the indigenous black churches of the American South you get a picture of what African Christianity, at its best really, can look like.  Much of the leadership is corrupt, having sold its soul to the Democratic Party.  The worship is not regulative to say the least, yet we can see glimpses of how God has expressed Himself in black people.  The passion and intensity of their worship, while not something I seek to emulate, is something I can respect and appreciate as part of the tapestry of the Church.

I’ll admit one more thing to you: I don’t even think white people are necessarily inherently more virtuous.  They just have more self-control, due to enhanced intelligence, and the ability to delay gratification.  A black man insulted may simply kill the offender on the spot, whereas a worldly white man is more likely to feel the same thing but calculate that such an action would land him in jail, so he plans his revenge in a more circuitous, passive-aggressive (and more legal) way.  The spirit of the sin is the same, as Christ reminded us.  Yet, when one is trying to build a Western society, it is clear that the passive-aggressive white man “fits” better than the black who kills in a rage.  Human societies are to this extent on an orthogonal plane to questions of sin and salvation.  All men are equally depraved, but the expression of that depravity is different in different societies, and some groups are simply incompatible with others.

As the police fraternities remind us, there is a thin blue line that protects society from anarchy and mayhem.  Once criminality reaches a critical mass, for example as in Africa, Detroit or Mexico, the costs of controlling it spiral out of control and the criminal elements themselves step into the vacuum of authority.

So the hostility to notions of human biodiversity among PC Christians is indicative of how absolute human equality is essential to their worldview.  Their white supremacism is expressed in their assumption that their particular society is the Christian society, and any differences in societal quality are just indications that those other societies are just not sufficiently Christian.  Their view is obviously false by observation (non-Christian Scandinavian countries are better places than Christian African countries), but they are emotionally wedded to human equality.  For some, it may be a security blanket, as it allows them to deny what’s in front their face: namely, that white Americans and Europeans have created quite a mess for themselves by inviting a coming majority of Third World peoples in their lands.  As an example, I give you the example of this video, something I’ve received in my email dozens of times from mainstream conservatives:

This is conservative schizophrenia on steroids (how do you like that mixed metaphor?).  They walk right up to the truth, showing explicitly the consequences of immigration and differential birthrates among people.  Everything but the last 30 seconds is like an article from American Renaissance.

Note, then, how the obvious solution is ignored.  The solution to Muslim immigration to Europe is the same today as it was in the time of Charles Martel, Ferdinand and Isabella: kick them out.  Share the gospel with them in their own country, heck give them a Bible and a tract as a parting gift as they fly back to Hellhole-istan, but send them back.

The hope that Europe can be preserved by simply converting Muslims (who are Arabs, with an average IQ comparable to Mexicans, and will manifest their Christianity in a different, likely culturally incompatible way) is a false hope; even if converting them would solve the problem, hoping for the mass conversion of aggressive, hateful idolaters is not a rational political strategy.  Large-scale conversions are rare extraordinary acts of Providence, and it is foolish the “bet the farm” of our homelands on this happening, even if one accepted the proposition that converted Arabs could preserve European civilization.

Yet the closer to obvious reality we get, the stronger the denials get.  This is classic psychology: Denial, Anger, Bargaining before Acceptance.  We are witnessing the grieving process for our nation, as its terminal state becomes more and more obvious.

Kinists should be encouraged that we have now reached the anger stage.  The frothing rage of the PC crowd with their cries of “heresy” (sermons these cowards never preach toward real modern-day heretics, like say Rev. Jeremiah Wright) is the first break in the dam.

Read Full Post »

Surely many of my readers are watching the world’s longest Facebook thread, where my work has been cited.  My comments:

I have heard that the second largest contingent of Presbyterians worldwide are in Korea.  Now while I readily admit that I know little of Korean Christian culture, I can make several negative generalizations that all readers will acknowledge are probably true.

1. Korean Christians don’t advocate for mass third world immigration to Korea because their churches are insufficiently diverse.

2. Korean Christians don’t encourage their children- a la John Piper- to marry people of other nations or races.

3. Korean Christians aren’t particularly keen on adopting non-Korean infants.

4. Korean Christians don’t have debates where they call each other heretics because one side believes that the Korean people, culture and nation are worth preserving.

These are just guesses of course, but it seems that racial autism is a particular genetic deformity of white men.  Just as Marx described capitalists as being willing to “sell you the rope with which to hang him,” similarly many whites seem oblivious to the realities of racial competition and identity in the world.

This post is written to those who still feel the call of the blood, concerning a meta-strategy for saving as many of our kinsmen as possible from the cultural Marxist mindset on race.

Our task is to provide a reasonable, defensible theological ground for the healthy white men, most of whom are subject to being browbeaten into accepting racial mixing by the crazy, deracinated adherents of cultural Marxism.  You will never convince these, as they, like autistics who don’t understand normal human emotion, don’t feel any loyalty to blood, a loyalty that is instinctual and universal among all humans outside of the white race.  Our deracinated society also unfortunately tends to promote these individuals to positions of prominence.

Many whites have had this genetic defect for a long time.  It is a harmful mutation of our healthy individualism.  This is why, though it pains me to see, I should, to some extent, be glad that interracial marriage is permitted and interracial adoptions are rampant.  Since you can’t tell who’s a racial nut visually, these tendencies express themselves in the actions of the person.  Most critically, it communicates vital information about the individuals involved vis-a-vis marriage for my children.  To sustain my family’s genetic capital, I want my children to marry intelligent white Christians who are also racially conscious, not racially autistic.  Children who come from families with high levels of racial nuttiness (interracial marriages and adoptions) probably are carriers of the white racial nuttiness genotype.  The nice thing is that racial nuttiness, from what I’ve seen, seems to correlate with other forms of nuttiness.  I won’t cite any specifics, as what I call nuttiness may be your pet belief, but suffice to say most will know what I mean by this statement: that particular breed of white Christian who does all sorts of peculiar things to sustain his pet abstractions, theological and otherwise.

One other interesting thing I’ve noticed is that Christian HBD adherents tend to be technical guys: engineers, computers, etc.  This is true among secular HBD types as well.  Racial reality is just another set of data points about the world, and the independence of mind of technical types lets them follow the facts wherever they lead.

To the contrary, the days when the best and brightest pursued theology are long past us; a pastor simply no longer enjoys the social status of a doctor or other high-level professional.  Thus, the kids who do poorly on the math SAT but can “pass” as intelligent verbally are more likely to go into the ministry.  This is where it gets tricky, because some of them rather enthusiastically start pounding their Bibles when confronted with uncomfortable facts, you know, like how Denmark is much less Christian than Uganda but it’s a better place to live.  Or how Iceland is a functional, mostly non-Christian country with no resources and Haiti is a nominally Christian basketcase blessed with some of the best land and resources in the world.

The contemporary Christian theologian rails about the depravity of man, and our utter inability to make sense of the world absent the Bible.  Yet engineers know this is a lie.  Some of the most brilliant engineers in the world are non-Christians, and their success is predominantly through their superior ability to make sense of natural revelation.  As Hugh Ross points out in the recent book The Genesis Debate, it never occurs to the theologians that the depravity of man would at least as equally compromise theologians’ ability to interpret the Bible as it does scientists’ interpretation of natural revelation.  Scientists and engineers, at least, are subject to rigorous feedback loops that enforce respect for the truth.  If I type the wrong command into my computer, it screws up.  I learn the correct command, and it functions.  Mathematicians don’t debate how to take an average.  Chemical engineers don’t debate the most efficient way to refine gasoline.  The best practices in each of these areas are self-evident due to the objective nature of technical work.

In theology, brilliant men can disagree over all kinds of major issues, and these conflicts can never be resolved this side of heaven.  My experience as an engineer and a businessman is very different.  If I misinterpret data, my capital will be subject to a ruthless culling in the marketplace that would make Darwin blush.  Data isn’t, as in most theologies, simply some sideshow to my Big Abstract Theory of Unified Business: data is my business, it sustains my business and any abstractions sustained against the data must be culled.  A theologian can go on making errors for years, and no one knows any difference, until Christ’s return.

Yet, instead of showing humility, any data that is presented to a theologian in contrast to his interpretation is immediately rejected.  The formula is simple:

Bible = Truth

Bible = How I Interpret the Bible

Me = Truth

You = Depraved Man Who Is Deceived by your so-called data

When you propose an alternative Biblical interpretation that preserves the harmony of both specific and natural revelation, especially the kind of natural revelation held in disfavor by our state religion Equality, they call you a heretic.

The problem for these guys is that logic and reason are essentially mathematical operations.  These guys have been butchering logic ever since they got their gentleman’s C in college algebra.

So my advice to the defenders of Christian racial consciousness is to keep fighting the good fight, but do so publicly where there’s an audience.  Some who can be reached will be convinced.  All we need to rebuild our civilization is a critical mass of Bible-believing, racially-conscious Christians.  Bury them in data, explanations and exegesis.  Treat them with the Christian respect they do not accord you in return, and those watching can decide for themselves who is reasonable and who is unreasoning.

Read Full Post »

A conservative writer, whose name escapes me, once wrote that liberalism is basically a religion, except there’s no Jesus and no God, but there is a devil: Hitler.  Thus, anything that Hitler might have remotely supported or is thought to have supported becomes, by association, itself evil.  Liberals aren’t exactly consistent on this score (as Hitler was a socialist and an antismoking zealot), but suffice to say that liberals never let consistency become a stumbling block in the way of power: especially power for virtuous liberals who are better qualified to judge right and wrong because of their unequaled hatred of Hitler and everything Hitler stood for that liberals don’t like.

Since liberalism remains the reigning paradigm, many young earth creationists have attempted to triangulate this feature of the ideological terrain by using variations of the argument that Darwin=racism=Hitler.  I’ll refer to these particular young earthers as liberal young earthers (for liberalism is the logical extension of the absolute human equality their position demands).  The most notable organization, Answers in Genesis, goes even further, parading around charts of mixed race couples (the only heterosexual union favored by the mainstream culture) and explaining how opposition to interracial marriage is driven by Darwinian racism.  So eager to please the mainstream (that nevertheless still regards them as toothless, ignorant hillbilly Bible-thumpers), they omit the simple fact that the people who have historically  most opposed interracial marriage, white Southerners, have also been the group least likely to believe in evolution and most likely to believe in a young earth.

The great Southern Presbyterian Robert L. Dabney, a strident opponent of interracial marriage, was among the first to offer critiques of the evolutionary and geological arguments for an old Earth (see Dabney’s Systematic Theology).

Nevertheless, many sincere Christians may be moved by the Darwin=Hitler=racism device.  This would be unfortunate, as I view an understanding of the realities of human biodiversity (the view that different groups of people differ in average ability) as the pre-eminent suppressed political truth of our time.  If we ever hope to reestablish some sort of Christian liberty, then we must recognize all of the limitations of fallen man, including variance between groups.  To characterize one of these limitations as forbidden simply because Darwinism provides a convenient explanation is illogical.  Here’s why I believe human biodiversity to be independent of considerations of atheistic evolution:

1. Let’s attack the Hitler argument head-on.  Yes, Hitler was an evolutionist, and a believer in human biodiversity (though an inaccurate one, badly mistaken, to his ruin, about the relative abilities of Germans and Slavs; the triumphs of the Cosmonauts, despite being hobbled by an inefficient Communist system, also disprove Hitler’s anti-Slavic prejudices).  What separates Hitler and Stalin was their willingness, along with homicidal personalities, to take their atheism to its logical conclusion.  If there is no God, then we can do what we want, and what Hitler and Stalin wanted to do was kill people.  We’re lucky that most atheists are restrained from such acts by personality and temperament.  The critical factors of Hitler and Stalin’s crimes are independent of any belief in human biodiversity (a belief shared by a majority of the Americans and British who fought them).

If, as the liberal young earthers argue, a belief in human biodiversity is the critical, unique factor in prompting Hitler’s abuses, how can they explain Stalin, whose crimes exceeded those attributed to Hitler by an order of magnitude?  For Stalin and the USSR were stridently anti-evolutionist and anti-human-biodiversity.  Marxism is an ideology that simplifies every relationship to economics, and one of its enabling assumptions is that all men are absolutely equal.  If they were not, then that might imply that inequality, such as develops in a free enterprise system, is natural and benign rather than exploitive, the linchpin of Marxist belief.

The Soviets were so wedded to the primacy of equality that they adopted agricultural practices based on a pseudoscience called Lamarckism; Lamarck was a scientist who opposed Darwin by explaining all purported evolutionary effects as being conditioned by the organism’s environment.  Thus they reasoned that certain strains of wheat most appropriate for warmer regions could indeed be grown in colder regions if it were simply exposed to the proper environment, notions they took seriously to the ruin of Soviet agriculture.  Today, we laugh at this, as even liberal young earthers admit that selective breeding of say, corn, can result in microevolutionary changes that improve the species.  The Soviets, however, took their anti-genetics stance very seriously, as they clearly saw the implications for Marxism if biodiversity played a significant role.

Therefore, since the Soviets murdered 20 million people, we could conclude, if we follow the liberal young earther methodology of argument-by-body-count, that anti-human-biodiversity Lamarckian materialism is many times worse than Darwinian materialism.  We could even conceive of an evil scenario where neo-Soviets convince a group of people, in their own country, that they are “racist oppressors”, and subject them to dispossession, rape and murder by foreigners in the land their ancestors built.  Oh wait…nevermind, that would never happen.  Much better to fret about Nazism, because we all know that human-diversity-believing neo-Nazis, not powerful Marxists ensconced in every significant institution in our society, are the greatest threat to our lives and liberties…

Let us also consider the Nazi regime’s crimes against the mentally ill.  To save the socialist state money, thousands of institutionalized people were euthanized because of mental illness.  We can condemn the Nazis for this act without denying the existence of mental illness.  What made it wrong was the murder, not the motive.  Liberals and liberal young earthers commit the fallacy of denying human biodiversity because Hitler used his warped version of it as one of his reasons to commit murder.  This is absurd.  Some rapists pick their victims based on immodest dress, reasoning that “she was asking for it.”  Does this mean that teaching young women that they have a responsibility to dress modestly somehow justifies rape?  Such is the analogous charge of liberals and the liberal young earthers.

2. I can test the reality of gravity.  If I let go of my pencil, it will hit the ground.  I can be completely ignorant and agnostic about the mechanism of gravity and yet still recognize the fact that, absent a compensating force, what goes up always comes down.  Similarly, the primary and most relevant claims of human biodiversity are independent of questions of origin.  For example, analysis of SAT scores reveal three critical things:

A. The SAT successfully predicts success (i.e. GPA) in college, better than any other single factor.

B. The hierarchy of SAT scores is Asians at the top, followed closely by whites, then at some distance Hispanics and at a further distance blacks at the bottom.

C. The SAT more-or-less predicts the success of each racial group in college.  If anything, due to cultural differences (propensity to study, respect for education) it slightly underpredicts white and Asian performance and overpredicts black and Hispanic performance.

These three facts contradict the two main arguments against racial differences in academic performance.  Liberals claim a) that the SAT is a meaningless test that cannot possibly predict performance better than a committee of liberals on an admissions committee, or b) the SAT is biased against blacks and Hispanics (curiously enough, this argument is never deployed to deconstruct the slight lead of Asians over whites; Asians are better because they’re superior to white people, but whites only appear better than blacks and Hispanics due to institutional white racism).  As shown above, both of these arguments are fallacious, as the SAT does predict college performance better than any other measure (most likely because it is objective, fair and avoids exactly the kind of subjective discrimination liberals claim to oppose) AND if anything, the SAT is biased against whites and Asians, who often overachieve in college relative to their intelligence.  If the SAT is biased towards blacks, then life itself would seem to be biased towards blacks (in fact, such is now pretty much the orthodox liberal view, chalking up all minority underachievement to unfalsifiable claims of institutional racism).

Human biodiversity is simply a belief that the evidence implies that these differences are mostly genetic, or biological, in origin.  While not proven by the SAT alone, when combined with other objective research (such as adoptive and demographic studies showing that, on average, the wealthiest black children have lower IQ’s than the poorest white children), it is clear that the HBD position is a reasonable one.  If anything, the fact that the entire liberal institutional apparatus of our society, the very people threatened with having to seek gainful employment if HBD is true, cannot produce environmental research refuting a mostly biological explanation is compelling.  The data are true independent of anyone’s opinions of evolution.  It would not contradict the data nor an honest young earth position to simply acknowledge that these differences are supernaturally created.  To deny the data because some people explain the data by appeal to evolution is illogical.  If I mistakenly believe gravity is driven by the invisible efforts of fairies, this has no bearing on the data showing that gravity is real, even if fairies are not.

This is the fundamental what of human biodiversity, and a vitally important truth.  This truth leads inevitably to the conclusion that the differences between racial groups in economic terms are intractable (one of the components to IQ is time preference and the ability to delay gratification, both keys to building wealth; in fact, IQ predicts income almost as robustly as academic performance).  Combine this unequal distribution with a one-man-one-vote democracy with unlimited taxing capacity and you have the death of liberty.  Why?  Depraved men will not accept a lassiez-faire system that shows their group is simply less able to produce economic value due to biological differences.  Fallen men will grasp onto anything but such a conclusion, instead fanning their envy by claiming that they are less successful because they are oppressed.  Liberalism has already supplied such a narrative, and most minority individuals believe it.  Once they become a voting majority, liberty is dead.

If this is true, then the only hope of liberty is either racial separation or a non-democratic government.  The latter is unlikely (about 30-40% of whites are certifiably politically crazy, and will resist, along with minorities, any transition to a non-democratic form of government), unsustainable (the demographics of minority population growth lead to a South African scenario, where there are simply too many of them for a non-democratic government to enforce the rule of law and rights of property from general mayhem) and undesirable (the South African government had to engage in increasingly distasteful, immoral acts to sustain itself against the demographic time bomb; it should be noted, however, that the ANC terrorists fought by the South African government were themselves no innocents).

I should pause here to consider whether there is a contradiction on the one hand between my a) sympathies for the Confederacy, a mixed-race non-democratic society (much more “diverse” demographically than the South is today) and b) my conclusion that racial separation is the most humane solution to resolving ethnic conflict.  The simple answer is the game has changed in a big way with the advent of contraception.  Simply, because it involves foresight and planning (and time preference is of the essence of intelligence), contraception ensures that the less intelligent, poorest people will have higher birthrates than the most intelligent, wealthiest people.  It used to not be this way, quite the opposite in fact; in England, the aristocracy left proportionally more descendants historically than the lower classes.  The new factor of contraception guarantees that a modern Confederacy would within a few generations degenerate into an utterly disordered state like South Africa.

Thus, racial separation remains as the least worst solution to the rabid inter-group envy that will persist in a mixed society.  It seems that familiarity breeds contempt, as men will gladly welcome trade with more successful groups abroad, but will not tolerate more successful ethnic groups occupying their same territory.  South African blacks, for example, aren’t particularly enraged that the Chinese in China are doing well for themselves lately.

At core, I think these are the logical and necessary conclusions of a) a generally conservative orientation that accepts the depravity of man, which is typical of the liberal young earthers, and b) the measurable reality of human biodiversity.  Because the liberal young earthers don’t like the conclusions, they attack b) as morally unacceptable, avoiding a need to engage with the data.

Another issue with the liberal young earthers is that they have a somewhat other-worldly orientation.  With the notable exception of Rushdoony (who was not a liberal, opposed interracial marriage and taught a world-conquering sort of faith) and his theological heirs, most young earthers buy into the fundamentalist disengagement with the world of politics, where the questions of HBD, blood and soil work themselves out.  Many of them think the world is about to end and simply don’t care what happens to their people or the land their ancestors built.  Hitting human biodiversity adherents with the Hitler stick is just one more Powerpoint slide to convince their followers that the-world-must-absolutely-be-only-6000-years-old-or-you-can’t-call-yourself-a-Christian.  The liberal young earthers are not unique in this idiosyncrasy; it is common for white people to get caught up in arguing over abstractions rather than looking out for their own self-interest.

3. All liberal young earthers claim to believe in microevolution, to an almost extreme degree, as they believe all animal life today is descended from a relatively few samples present on Noah’s ark during a worldwide flood.  While wielding the Hitler stick, does it never occur to them that the ideas of human biodiversity are themselves questions of microevolution?  No HBD adherent has claimed any human differences of extreme absolute significance, comparable to the spontaneous generation of a flagellum.  HBD simply says that people differ slightly in their cranial capacities, mental efficiency and physical traits, and that genetic differences account for differing averages between groups; these differences are naturally derived and are considerably less absolutely genetically significant than the differences between breeds of dogs.

These differences appear significant from our perspective, because (surprise, surprise) our people enjoy certain adaptations that make them particularly suited to creating Western-style advanced societies, just as we should not be surprised when a bassett hound is outpaced by a greyhound.  When other groups show themselves less able to sustain our type of civilization, this matters a great deal politically, for it has big implications for major liberal policies like mass immigration and what exactly constitutes a nation.  But biologically these differences are not all that significant, and really present no problem for an enlightened young earth view that acknowledges the self-evident reality of microevolution in humans and sheds the need to please the liberal mainstream by showing themselves to be doctrinaire equalitarians.

4. Lastly, due to overwhelming evidence, a great many honest liberals have retreated to a culturalist position, the last ditch of HBD-denial.  This view acknowledges real, seemingly intractable racial differences but chalks them up to cultural differences (which is undoubtedly true to some extent).  They sidestep the genetic question by portraying culture as an accident of history independent of any biological drivers.  This view was recently put forward in the bestseller No Excuses.

Steve Sailer has mocked this view by noting how it conveniently creates lots of employment opportunities for “nice white ladies” with liberal arts degrees to engage in taxpayer-funded uplift projects in the ghetto.  Liberalism has essentially admitted that closing the “achievement gap” means separating black children from their parents as much as possible.  Of course, the results from Head Start and other similar efforts have proven to be illusory and temporary, disappearing entirely by age 17 on IQ and achievement tests.

I believe many honest conservatives also embrace this view.  It allows one to acknowledge racial reality without coming to any uncomfortable conclusions about biology.  But really, how is this view any kind of solution?

Would not changing people’s culture involve every bit the tyranny of changing their genetics?  Would it not, as exemplified by the prototypical efforts of Head Start, involve placing liberals in charge of the raising of children?  Do we even have the right to deprive minority parents of the dignity of raising their own children in their own culture, however dysfunctional?  The level of paternalism involved would make a Confederate slaveowner blush.  The level of tyranny is Orwellian.

Thus, we see that practically, there is little difference whether we regard ethnic differences as biological or cultural, as both are intractable.  The same solution, that of national separation, is implied by both.  It could be argued that national separation is the ordinary means God provides to minimize conflict between groups of men.  I can understand why the secular globalists would resist such a solution, but not orthodox Christians.  Let us shed the remaining vestiges of the globalist worldview and accept the judgment of history and Providence.  Men are separated by God into nations for a divine purpose and we ignore these distinctions at our peril.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »