John,

American blacks—our fellow citizens, whose ancestors picked our crops and fought in our wars—are the least of our problems. And as the heirs of a group which not so long ago really was oppressed by our government, their well-being is also in some sense our responsibility. Unlike illegal aliens, we actually owe them something.

The least of our problems? Crime, welfare, and the adulteration of our culture by a people who refuse to assimilate is the least of our problems? No, I dare say this is the root of our problems, the model that we should anticipate all other inassimilable people will follow.

Owe them something? Are you kidding me? The reason I visit this website is to avoid having to deal with absurd guilt politics like this. We owe them nothing. Absolutely nothing. Consider the predicament of blacks in every other nation of this world and you will find that they have a better life available to them here than they do anywhere else. Yes, we treated them as unequals, but until the 20th century, there was very little empirical evidence indicating that they were in any way deserving of equal status. Equality is not a quality to be determined by ethics, it is an issue to be determined by meritocracy.

But I agree with your assessment that appealing to argument of race is a losing battle. Instead, we must use arguments of culture before this too becomes off limits.

It may be true that embracing race-realism could jeopardize the paleos’ current high level of media access and influence on public affairs, but on the question of public harm, Mr. Zmirak didn’t even address Jared Taylor’s very simple point.  If every group is equally able, and one group consistently achieves less in some arena than another group, then there must be some social explanation for it: institutional racism, slavery, stereotype threat, whatever.  And it’s the duty of the predominant group—that’s us—to rectify the injustice.  As Michael Levin pointed out in Why Race Matters, appeals to individual rights, colorblind societies, etc. are weak and unconvincing, if whites are (were) responsible for group inequality.

Also, your nightmare scenarios seem a bit far-fetched in a time when the use of the word “nigger” is guaranteed to get you fired from your job and ostracized from polite society.  I’ve never seen a slope as slippery as the one you’re depicting.

Ploni Almoni, the folks from Human Resources wanted me to let you know that the use of the word “slope” in your latest posting caused offense among your Sino-American co-workers. As a result of our corporate committment to tolerance and sensitivity, I regret to inform you that your contract with takimag.com has been terminated.

John,
An excellent post, though sometimes I wonder why you bother.

Ploni,

“It may be true that embracing race-realism could jeopardize the paleos’ current high level of media access and influence on public affairs”

Are you kidding !?

Unfortunately, the plain fact of the matter is that many non-whites hate us and would do us harm if they could. That being so, it is wise to keep away from them if you can. if this be “White nationalism, then make the most of it!”

Your article “America the Abstraction” is excellent - “An ideological litmus test becomes the standard of citizenship.” Perfect.  But please, tells us who’s that “young import from Eastern Europe” whose grandfather helped Stalin implement the Ukraniane famine.  Was it Max Boot?  Who - name names; it’s only fair.

On the other hand, it’s interesting how many “Native Born White Americans” chose to emote on a website bank-rolled by a millionaire Greek who has spent more time among international ruling class oligarch playboys in Capri and Caen than in the beloved heartland.  Has Taki ever been to Kansas?  God I hope not.

Why is “tribalism” a “tragedy”?  I’m not certain that it isn’t,
but I just don’t understand why.  It certainly has worked well for
the Jewish people, and many others.  Or hasn’t it?

Zmirak:  “it is typically only minority groups which are reduced to the tragedy of tribalism.”

All of ancient morality, in some sense, was based upon tribalism.  Cicero’s very notion of natural law was, as he stated in numerous places, manifest in the mos maiorum (in the tradition of his ancestors).  Many ancient political terms (e.g. nation) imply link by blood.  Without some grounding of tribalism, one inevitably drifts into propositionalism.

Marxism, the popular demagogic one, I think, was designed to dupe the intellectuals. Im not what you call an intellectual [Just a greasy bearing in a large wheel =] but Marx just never made sense with his Hegelian dialectic, So I agree here with Zirmaks opinion of Marx.

John - Maybe you should get out more often, perhaps visiting one of those ethnic neighborhoods that are considered “less desirable”. You would find the “welcome mat” somewhat interesting, and perhaps be lucky enough to arrive back at your sanctuary unscathed, where you could pen another utopian screed.

“Black on Black” crime data is shocking enough, but the data illustrating “Black on White” crime is enough to, well, make one blanche. Regardless of one;s high faluting hopes, “Tribalism” is the basis of culture.

That Washington fellow once muttered something about our country being “the same people, with the same language, with the same religion, with slight differences”. Something akin to that anyhow. Back in the day, there was a more clear understanding of what was required to be a “nation”. It isn’t as if we forgot, it is that over time we were convinced (public education and incessant propaganda)that the contrary was true.

Divide and conquer, John. Divide and conquer.

As long as I’m at it -

“Sad Sorority of Skin”?

An “A” for the alliteration, but it is the fraternity that’s the problem.The “sorority” in the most problematic socioeconomic group births the fraternity at a 70% illegitimacy rate. Untold numbers of sex partners, no “Dad” around, violence at stunning levels…

Their Hispanic counterparts have an illegitimacy rate of 56% and the rest of their social behaviors mimic those of the African-American “community”. Wonderful. Oh - They’re Catholic, so they are more “forgivable”?

Kumbaya.

Racialists are more rooted than most others.

While cosmos have few particular ties, racialists have a native land, people, set of traditions, religion, and often a community.

There is no third way between racialist and cosmo.

@Condor,

good points but I would like to remind you that it isn’t the illegitimacy that is the problem so much as the complete absence of a father.  The marxist court system conspires against fathers such as my friend who objected to his ex having male friends over when his daughter was there and he was told that it is none of his business.  Evidently the courts have no interest in the statistics regarging by who and how children are molested.  It is only a problem when it happens in the Catholic Church I guess.

I disagree with this idea that we should be evasive about reality in the interest of social peace or because certain facts might be abused.  Suppressing IQ data won’t fool anyone about what their eyes and experiences reinforce every day. People know about group trends; it’s not news, especially to people whose honesty has not been suppressed by higher level education group-think.

What science can’t do, but real conservatives must, is remember that we have certain obligations to one another as countrymen, as Christians, and as beings made in the image of God.  This is true for all of our countrymen of all races. We should not descend into a pagan attempt to eugenecize ourselves into supermen and throw away those deemed inferior or more burdensome.  We should instead seek (or rather remember) to create conditions for the social flourishing of all the races based on reality.  Because of our cultural and racial differences, this means different communities will need different levels of social control, order, educational systems, and the like.  This local variation is perfectly healthy and, so long as done in a spirit of charity, need not be nasty and mean-spirited.

White nationalism as opposed to historic American patriotism, however, is uncharitable, ahistorical, and unnecessary. It seeks to recreate America on the basis of a single unifying abstract principle, just as mass immigration seeks to recreate the historical America on the basis of a universalist principle.

Blacks and whites got along better, spoke the same langauge, sang the same songs, and worshiped the same God back when a broad-minded American patriotism ruled the day. That patriotism did not demand “white power” so much as it did not allow “black power.” It recognized instead the sovereignty of the law, and in cultural matters the rights of wealthy, self-respecting, educated whites who constituted a majority to set standards for the whole society.  Black leaders followed their lead, setting up social clubs and institutions that overlapped with or worked in parallel with those of whites.  Black and white leaders both demanded the same behavior of the lower classes of both races and pursued the same goals that formed a common culture.  I do not believe it was wise or just to have imported millions of Africans as slaves.  But the current degraded conditions of race relations are not all there is either. 

I also agree with John that we are countrymen, and it is a cruel and ideological view that would be indifferent to the effects of mass immigration and other policies on low IQ native-born Americans, both blacks and white. To me, understanding IQ can make us more charitable and more realistic with one another.

While I do not believe in perpetual guilt-tripping and obeissance to ridiculous race-hustlers like Al Sharpton, my opposition to that does not prevent me from having ordinary Christian feelings of sympathy and fellow feeling with my black countrymen, folks who speak my language, fight our wars, etc.  I do not have to forget that black criminals exist in higher percentages and that black culture has been degraded since the Sixties to remember also that it produced Booker T. Washington and Ella Fitzgerald and the many black servicemen who have fought our nations’ wars out of patriotic love of country. 

We are in a degraded time, with unnecessary and avoidable friction fomented by race-hustlers.  We should not tolerate them, but we need not suppress truths about differences of the races to do so. Indeed, truth in light of charity is the way forward.

Christopher - As usual, very eloquently put.  You cogently summed up my general thoughts on this subject, as well as those of many other readers here, I’d wager.

Dear Chris,
If the people talking about IQ differences spoke in language like yours, and the overall political context were one of such evident Christian charity and race-blind patriotism, I would have no problem at all with addressing the underlying facts (whatever they turn out to be) of statistical differences among different human groups.

But facts are facts.  They can be applied any number of ways, including uncharitable ones.  The motive even to discovery and publicize them may be uncharitable, but the gold can be seperated from the dross.  Science is, above all, a method that is largely value-neutral, and this includes studies like psychometrics.  I would consider too science promulgated by believers in Judaism, Islam, atheism, or any number of other mistaken views. 

Conserveratives must, however, to remain persuasive (a) root our views in reality and (b) apply those views in the light of a moral reality which demands charity to all, including charity to our black fellow citizens. I believe liberalism is fragile because of its dependence on lies, half-truths, and its aggressive attempts to silent dissent.  The cornerstone of all liberalism is a belief in tabula rasa equality and actual inequality as proof of western moral failure.  The start of that chain of reaoning is completely false and undermining this should be a major conservative endeavor.  Coupled with Christianity, this truth will be easier for otherwise well-meaning people to accept than they would otherwise.  Indeed, discovering this truth in light of the moral architecture of Christianity would allow this issue to allow us to explain why Christianity is more relevant than ever considering the facts of human inequality between individuals and between group averages.

A white liberal once explained to me the reason he and all the other white liberals did not live in ‘the hood’ was the absence of organic food stores there. Unfortunately such an excuse won’t work for those of us with conventional eating habits. So what lie should we use so as not to be “uncivil” and “anti-social”?

Since this topic is gaining steam around these parts, it would be a good idea to post the much lauded Jared Taylor/Steve Sailer debate on Vdare concerning “white nationalism” v Steve Sailer’s “citizenism.”

With all due respect, Mr. Zmirak seems to have taken up residence in The City of God a little before his time. 
It’s not enough to simply close the borders and call well enough alone. The process of self destruction has gone too far.  It seems to me that the question of European American self defense and activism is more a matter of when rather than if. 
Mr. Zmirak’s Catholic world view is laudable in a Western context where Christian values form the basis of discourse.  Does anyone think were are in such a situation now?  Or to put it differently, The Pope can crown Charlemaine but it takes Charlemaines to insure a continuity of Popes.

It may be true that embracing race-realism could jeopardize the paleos’ current high level of media access and influence on public affairs

LOL

I do agree that Amren focusses way to much on blacks, though I am not offended by a paper/article that shows, through reason and data, why its okay to avoid them.

But, despite the length of his essay [maybe hire an editor -ed.] Zmirak doesn’t rebut word one of Taylor’s reply. He just emotes—‘the sad sorority of skin’.

It’s not about skin—race goes to the bone, courses through the veins, affects cognition. And sorry, but I feel more at home with a random German or Brit or Scandinavian that I do with about 95% of the black Americans I have met. Indeed I bet Zmirak does too.

As to political efficacy—since Paleos have just about less than zero, I’d say they have no room to talk. And home many abortions were there in America when it was, in effect, a white nationalist state (i.e. before 1952). I think most of us are mature enough to realize that ain’t coming back. Jared Taylor himself has stated he wants two things (1) and end to immigration (2) end to anti-discrimination laws . Then Zmirak can cavort all he wants with whatever Hmong, Vietnamese, Mulattos, or Blacks are here. But we can go about our business building our communities.

I’m definitely not a white nationalist, but I find (most of) them infinitely more sane, rational and friendly than reactionary, fanatical Catholics who find no contradiction between their Church’s radical, egalitarian, universalist social justice teachings and their own so-called conservative ideals.

White nationalism as opposed to historic American patriotism, however, is uncharitable, ahistorical, and unnecessary.

I’m sorry to see Mr. Roach fall for this. White nationalism of the Jared Taylor sort (but not of the Alex Linder sort) is less radical, less militant, less racist than just about anything in American mainstream thought right through until mid 20th century. Citizenship (naturalisation) was limited to whites. Chinese, then Japanese, then finally all Asians were prohibited from immigrating in anything but trivial numbers until 1952 when a few, then 1965 when millions, were allowed to enter.

Even some slave opponents serious thought about ‘repatriating’ blacks. The militia was reserved for whites. I could go on, and on, and on but surely you all must know this. It is you who are being ahistorical.

Right on Dominic. Zmirak’s radical ultramontanism is foreign (literally) to American thought. I am beginning to suspect he is the paleo version of white-hating neocon/theocons such as Mary Anne Glendon and Linda Chavez. My God, the man wrote a ‘book’ about a bishop from Dafur saving Western Civilization. Take it from me, I live in a city with a lot of enthusiastic African Christians. Other than a certain atavistic hatred of homos they really are conservative in their Christianity. Zmirak’s reasoning. Some (many) whites are liberal, some Africans (and whatever) are conservative, therefore whites are bad, Africans our saviors.

It don’t fly.

they really are conservative in their Christianity

they really are *not* conservative in their Christianity

This is another good time to link to my FAQ about why we MUST talk about race differences to fight the managerial state and the militant egiltarians.  5th question down is “So What if It Is True?” and that’s what relevant here.

http://thenewfaith.org/faq-and-why-race-mattes/

Pitak thinks it’s “uncivil” to bring up race differences in IQ for political argument.  I think it’s uncivil to blame whites for the fact that 70% of black children are born out of wedlock and a third of black males commit crimes.  It’s uncivil that we’re consistently reminded about the evil of seperate water fountains while 40,000 white women are raped by black men every year. 

Suggesting quoting the constitution and appealing to state rights while facing racial collectivism and group identity is like brining a squirt gun to a war zone.

Nationalism is tribalism with familial lines replaced with geographic ones.

I think John is spot on.  Anything as reductionist as IQ is, IS toxic.  And to talk about ‘understanding’ IQ is frankly stupid.  Noone ‘understands’ IQ really.  If it were as determinative or important as people make out, we would all be stampeding to get into Japan or China or Korea and we aren’t.  It is a crude way of measuring a very particular ability to recognize patterns (mine’s not that high either so it’s gotta be crap).  Real energy and power come from personal integrity and a strong sense of responsibility for oneself and others.  As naïve as this might sound, I am sure this is true.  It’s just being ‘civilized’.  This is what gets anything positive done ultimately.  And this is the thing Christians understand so completely (and why they won’t shut up). 

I don’t see that IQ has such a huge effect on behavior.  I think for a large majority of people, what matters is simply being taught to be civilized and absent that, we are on shaky ground even if every low IQ person (of any color) were deported And state-sanctioned or acknowledged differences in services and infrastructure? Yikes.  Christopher sounds like he is trying to micromanage this problem and that is what caused the mess in the first place.  “Hands off!” should be the conservative cry imo.

What will be achieved by talking about something which has little measurable practical effect?  Not much.  The only practical benefit is to fight off political correctness.  Fair enough for white nats.  I think having zero tolerance for bullshit and being honest about crime rates is essential but why bring IQ into it for politically active conservatives?  What does it achieve really except to treat people like robots.  That understandably makes them hostile.

Concentrating on dealing with abortion is far more likely to yield the outcome you want in the long run than having public discussions about IQ differentials.  Deeming abortion totally objectionable is worthy not just because it’s obviously true but because it is also a way of forming people’s sensibilities, which do affect their behavior much more than their IQ does I think. 

Maximize freedom and things will start to right themselves in a healthy way.

At the root of John Zmirak’s essay is his failure to understand that the language of white liberals, white conservatives, white libertarians, white Christians, white Orthodox, white Slavics, white plagiarists of Steve Sailer’s citizenism, and indeed all the white Zmiraks is, in the eyes of people of color, the language of white men.

As hard as he resists this insight, the fact remains—to all people of color, he is a white man (without diversity of either intellectual or physical nature) whose speech is designed to advance the white race. He will figure it out sometime. John, you are what you are, and you cannot escape your fate.

A White Nationalist stste cna rebuilt. IT staerts with a policy of 0 LEGAL immigration and the deportation of all illegal aliens. Then move on to cordon sanitaire policy. Let the places rot and become very unpleaant for the inhabitrants in these areas.

Deport obvious Asian fifth column communities across America. Good place to start is Silicon Valley.

As the quality of life continues to deteriorateor White Americans, they will become intolerant of post-1965 hispanics,asians,africans and muslims.

The full-blown revolt will start with public displays of intolerance to post-1965 non-whites. Its either this or Native Born White Americans will loselarge sections of the nation they found and created to mexico,china,pakistan,Iran and India.

No shouuld assume that the partition of America into seprate race based based nation states will prevent violent conflict between the different raqced based nation states. The direction we are heading in is worse than many of you realize.

The non-white areas of the nation weill be ecological disasater areas. Understand something, post-1965 nonwhites are comming here to expand and exapnd and expand. Endangered plaant and animal species in California will be wiped out. Both these states are facing terrible water shortages.

Ever here of the Western compact. IF you haven’t look it up. When the racial transformation of California and texas is complete there very well may be a shooting war over water supplies.

Whether you think Native Born White Amricans will revolt and throw many of the post 1965 non-whites out of America depends upon what you think Native Born White Americans will put up with. My prediction is that when Native Born White Americans relaize just how badly they have been decieved they will revolt, and they will do it in a violent way. If biology is any guide on this matter, it will be quite nasty. I wouldn’t want to be either a Republican or Democratic politician.Check out the Trivers interview with Chomsky. Its floating somewhere out on the internet.

http://www.vimeo.com/1211060?pg=embed&sec=1211060

Jupiter,

your poor spelling suggests you’re not a brainwashed academic, and herein lies an important truth: it takes a brainwashed academic to believe this nonsense about a third way between doing one’s duty and betraying one’s own.

Instinctively we know to defend our own, and on some level I suspect you’re an example of a pure heart not yet tainted by Marxist college professors - a natural man who thinks his own thoughts rather than his teachers’.

Because it’s in our nature to defend our own, white nationalism will grow while this anti-national localist nonsense, which is really a sort of weak tribalism that cannot easily resist globalism, will fade away. Man is tribal, and it’s high time we listened to our hearts rather than to the Enlightenment rationalists.

While White Nationalism is slowly being talked about here, European White Nationalists have already formed political parties and are being elected to parliaments. It’s not a question of will it happen here, but when.

Weren’t the Founding Fathers “WN-ists” or, at least, White Federalists?” Whose beliefs are closest to those of the Founders?

Were the Founders a “sad fraternity of skin?”

Lovely essay Mr. Zmirak. Now could you please refute Jared Taylor’s
points?

Mr. Maxsnafu:
The point of the essay was NOT to critique the IQ research Taylor presents, about which I’m not qualified to comment. Let’s stipulate, for the moment, that it’s 100% accurate. My point is that it’s counterproductive to use such arguments-- that it has socially toxic side effects, and WILL NOT WORK. Instead, I offer arguments against the same government policies that are less divisive, and have (I argue) a better chance of working. Nobody is responding to THAT point among these comments. People are howling about censorship and obscurantism. What I’m talking about is tact, decorum, prudence, awareness of audience--all elements of rhetoric, one of the liberal arts. These are the tools to use if you want to actually persuade people. Which is presumably what you want if you actually care
about the Common Good. If all someone really wants is to strut about and show how “brave” he is for flouting social conventions… as a conservative I have no interest in that. Go play someone else. Go run down the middle of 125th Street yelling “N-gger, n-gger, n-gger!” It will accomplish just as much, and would take a lot more nerve than posting pseudonymous, “tough-minded” “racial realism” on the Web.

Mr. Zmirak is right, to rally around questions of IQ is not going to win the day. But violent Minority on White crime, which is at epidemic levels, is something most Whites know about.

Mr. Stevens,

with all due respect, cynicism accomplishes nothing.

We’ll have eternity to look back on the deeds we accomplish in this life, and I’d much rather look back on a last stand than an embarrassing apathy.

Quoth the General, “Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”

There’s a wise comment in The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift: “There’s an old saying - For want of a nail...the horseshoe was lost. For want of a horseshoe, the steed was lost. For want of a steed...the message was not delivered. For want of an undelivered message.....the war was lost.”

And as Aristotle said: virtuous men are few in any society.

I’d like to the actions of those few have a great impact: that a small, dedicated, capable and skilled minority can make a difference, that our destiny isn’t set in stone, and that we can still save some remnant part.

When the virtuous fail to stand, the morons rule.

Mr. Zmirak writes: “It will accomplish just as much, and would take a lot more nerve than posting pseudonymous, “tough-minded” “racial realism” on the Web.”

Does writing essays on the web, such as this one, accomplish more?

It’s arguable that repeatedly restating the same disagreements over and again here is disrespectful, but we should all be sharply aware of the power of the pen, ah keyboard.

Just a few questions gentlemen. With our supposedly higher IQ how come we let ourselves be outsmarted, marginalized and feel endangered? What good is the higher IQ if it is not used? Don’t you think that to win these battles we need to present ideas that will be seen by people as more atractive and more worthy than those of our opponents?

“it’s counterproductive to use such arguments...it has socially toxic side effects, and WILL NOT WORK…offer arguments against the same government policies that are less divisive, and have...a better chance of working. ”

“...tact, decorum, prudence, awareness of audience…the tools to use if you want to actually persuade people…presumably what you want if you actually care about the Common Good.”

That’s what Republican party hacks say to those who refer to abortion as “murder” or “infanticide”.

How has playing nice been working? The reality is if you oppose racial preferences for any reason, if you disagree even slightly about the magnitude of discrimination, leftists will call you a ‘racist’.  If it’s going to happen anyway, you might as well get your money’s worth, and try to make people uncomfortable.  By doing so maybe at some point those people who care “decorum” and “the Common Good” will decide to back off.

I hope Zmirak can answer Taylor’s point about the “dirty” business of IQ comparisons (a point echoed by, if not received from, Michael Levin).  Europeans stand accused of being responsible for “black failure” (their only failure is failing to live up to white norms); Zmirak seems to think it’s okay to shout down Europeans for defending themselves against this slur.

On the other hand, it’s interesting how many “Native Born White Americans” chose to emote on a website bank-rolled by a millionaire Greek

In what way is it interesting?

Why is “tribalism” a “tragedy”?  I’m not certain that it isn’t,
but I just don’t understand why.  It certainly has worked well for
the Jewish people, and many others.  Or hasn’t it?

I’d like to be enlightened on this point as well.

Racialists are more rooted than most others.

While cosmos have few particular ties, racialists have a native land, people, set of traditions, religion, and often a community.

Indeed.  A racialist, if he goes far enough down the path, comes to a place where he understands himself far better than non-racialists.  I am animal, I am human, I am European, I am northwest European, I am male, etc.  Non-racialists have the legs cut out from under this sort of experience and so cannot really appreciate the fullness of themselves in even this fundamental, simple way.  Pity.

White nationalism as opposed to historic American patriotism, however, is uncharitable, ahistorical, and unnecessary. It seeks to recreate America on the basis of a single unifying abstract principle, just as mass immigration seeks to recreate the historical America on the basis of a universalist principle.

“Ahistorical” is just funny to me.  WTF is that supposed to mean, exactly?

“Uncharitable” is, well, uncharitable; sure, many WNs fit the description, many do not.  Personally I think charity begins at home.  Let’s do Europeans the greatest of charities, by pulling the gun away from their temples.  Btw, WNism does not necessarily seek to recreate America.  Something as simple as repealing all anti-discrimination laws would probably satisfy many, if not most WNs.  That’s not recreating anything, it’s undoing a previous, disastrous attempt to recreate America.  That and a strict States’ rights reading of the Constitution would probably be enough for me, at least in terms of “reacreating” American government.

And there’s nothing abstract about Ethnic Genetic Interests.  That’s as concrete as they come.

Blacks and whites got along better

This whole paragraph is confusing - who’s “recreating” now?

While I do not believe in perpetual guilt-tripping and obeissance to ridiculous race-hustlers like Al Sharpton, my opposition to that does not prevent me from having ordinary Christian feelings of sympathy and fellow feeling with my black countrymen, folks who speak my language, fight our wars, etc.

Neither does WNism.

Dear Chris,
If the people talking about IQ differences spoke in language like yours, and the overall political context were one of such evident Christian charity and race-blind patriotism, I would have no problem at all with addressing the underlying facts (whatever they turn out to be) of statistical differences among different human groups.

Motives trump than actions?  Manners trump substance?  Doesn’t sound very conservative to me.

But we can go about our business building our communities.

Good job pointing the conversation in the right direction, Stari.

Yes, what’s the problem with Europeans creating their own communities?  Controlling their own destinies?  Can Zmirak answer these simple questions?

No shouuld assume that the partition of America into seprate race based based nation states will prevent violent conflict between the different raqced based nation states. The direction we are heading in is worse than many of you realize.

It would obviously prevent, or at least drastically diminish, all the racial stuff everyone whines about.  Your argument seems to me analogous to saying a fence around one’s property won’t prevent tresspass.  Okay, true, but it sure as hell would help.

Man is tribal

Boom!  There it is.  To oppose this fundamental trait of man is, in my view, anti-humanist.  It’s a bit crazy, IMO (though not at all abnormal).

My point is that it’s counterproductive to use such arguments

Joe is on trial for breaking Bob’s leg.  Joe’s defense is to prove that Bob’s leg was already broken before the former ever met the latter.

John thinks Joe’s defense is morally reprehensible, no wait toxic, no wait, it’s counterproductive.

Sorry Zmirak, not buying it.  It just doesn’t make sense.

Actually, my analogy isn’t that great because Joe’s progeny won’t be blamed, in perpetuity, for Bob’s injury, or its debilitating effects on Bob’s progeny, in perpetuity.

So really, I should find an analogy in which Joe is morally obligated to prove Joe’s leg was broken before the two ever met, because otherwise Joe’s children, and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be punished (in order to reward Bob’s children, and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren), but I’m not going to do that right now.

Plus it’s not really resonating since Zmirak agrees with so little of what so many race-realist-cum-IQ-realists believe in terms of first priciples, so his advice doesn’t come across as all that well-intentioned.  (in other words, tactics like emotionalism, smearing, etc., are counterproductive and WILL NOT WORK)

and WILL NOT WORK

Methinks the liberals doth protest (and censor, and smear, and threaten) too much for me to buy into that argument.

With our supposedly higher IQ how come we let ourselves be outsmarted, marginalized and feel endangered?

I don’t understand that question.  It seems to containt a premise or premises that I reject.

What good is the higher IQ if it is not used?

Not much.

If it’s going to happen anyway, you might as well get your money’s worth, and try to make people uncomfortable.  By doing so maybe at some point those people who care “decorum” and “the Common Good” will decide to back off.

Plus there’s triangulation, which benefits paleos; the further out we can stretch the range of dissent to the “right,” the better it is for everyone right of center.  Zmirak really doesn’t want to be the furthest right considered in public discourse, no matter how much he might seem to by implication.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I think Zmirak’s behavior is consistent with classic triangulation.

Jupiter,

separating bright and dull in school allows the bright to develop more fully.

Those who work hard and prove capable of thriving in a higher class should of course be transferred.

Gattaca is an absurd extreme.

---

I fully agree with what you say here:

“Post -1965 immigration should be opposed because it is racially changing the the racial composition of America.”

But I find school segregation essential for raising bright children well. If you’ve ever been in public school, you probably agree with me :p

I’ve admittedly found that certain personalities seem to do better on such tests than do others.

And I’ve also found those who work outdoors and in more blue collar type occupations are often filled with a certain wisdom.

Those who work indoors and who study all of the time can often be a little off.

So, I wouldn’t go so far as to say those at the top are better than those below. But just as some won’t make the football team, some won’t make the cut for Calculus.

Jared Taylor’s commentary on the ongoing colloquy on race here at Takimag now
appears (July 3) linked to this site, and it is a reasoned and cogent response,
not at all hostile to John Zmirak. Racial and cognitive differences are a simple
fact, and we avoid them at our own peril. It is much better that we discuss them
intelligently and without vitriol (as both Paul Gottfried and Taylor have done), rather
than let them fester. Our “p.c.” culture would exile such discussion, except when
it confirms its own egalitarian motivations. But at thousands---hundreds of thousands--
of supper tables each night, race and racial issues are discussed, and at water
coolers around the nation, employees comment. Despite the efforts of those who
would assure us that there are no cognitive differences, that everyone is the same,
that all it takes is a few billion dollars more, the problems of natural and
cognitive inequality will not and cannot go away.

The Church has repeatedly condemned egalitarianism and the unnatural and perverse
attempts to destroy the natural order, through which efforts a false equality is
imposed. No man is equal or should be compared on the basis of equality to another
man; we are all different, unequal in gifts and talents, and this is the way that
God made us. In nature, we may be compared rightly only to that model of our OWN
perfection, to our OWN highest capabilities, and NOT to anyone else. Legislation that
would impose equality, that would make all the same, is worse than wrongheaded; it
perverts nature.

It is stated, rightfully, the God created all men with a rational soul, and so
every man, in some way, resembles every other man. And this principle is rightfully
a “unversal,” in the actual sense that all men possess such a soul. Thus, every man is
certainly capable of what we call “human dignity” and respect. But this principle, this
unversalism, is often expanded and broadened into something that it most certainly is not. The
teachings of the Church have been mentioned, but Church does not comment on disputes
over cognitive differences and DNA. The Church has never taught that all men are “Equal”
in the sense, it appears, that some would suggest. Nor has the Church, historically and
traditionally, taught that all men, in se, and all beliefs enjoy equal “dignity.”

What is omitted in this discussion is the fact that true human dignity can only be obtained
through the acceptance by an individual of the True, that is, the complete orientation of
one’s conscience and subsequent actions to the Will of God. Only in such a way, to
quote Pope Leo XII and St. Thomas, can man be said to be truly a “son of God” and truly
enjoy “human dignity” and the rights of the children of God. Certainly, those without
this orientation enjoy certain, what have been called, “negative rights”: the “right” not
to be coerced into believing the Truth, the “right” not to be punished without due process,
the “right” not to be molested in family and personal property. But the full dignity of the
human being comes only through his adhesion to the Truth; as the late Dominican peritus,
Fr. Victorino Rodgriquez, explained in three profound studies, the “rights” of pagans are
not really “rights” at all, but negative “images” or “signs” of rights. They reflect the
image of a man, but a man without the HUMAN dignity that comes ONLY through man’s adhesion
to the DIVINE.

Lastly, the impression has also been generated that the Church has, somehow, condemned
“nationalism.” Again, let me suggest that an appropriate nationalism, understood as a love
for one’s nation, one’s individual and historic culture, one’s race, one’s family, one’s
region, is not only not incompatible with traditional Christianity (and in particular,
the Catholic Church), but concords well with it, and indeed, Christianity assisted mightily
in the very creation of the nations of Europe and America. Obviously, if nationalism were
to become solely the “worship” of the nation-state, or a belief that race, and race alone,
was the ONLY criterion deserving of our support, then such doctrines might run afoul of
traditional Christianity. But most of those who discuss and who have discussed such ideas
on this site, and certainly writers like Sam Francis and Jared Taylor, were and are considerably
more nuanced, and understand that race and nationalism, even if primary in consideration,
are not the only considerations in thinking about our survival as a civilization. The desire
to celebrate and love one’s own people, one’s own race, one’s own culture, more so than
another people, another race, and another culture, is totally normal and natural,
and compatible with traditional Christianity.

As our Western civilization has an ineradicable Christian basis, and was in large part
created by European Christians, it is incumbent that when we discuss our survival and our future
refluorescence, that that body of beliefs be understood as critical to any understanding.
And, further, I would suggest that it is right for us to discuss and examine how our
religious foundations, and our nation (and regions), and our race, all intermingle to
make up our culture and our civilization. But first we must get over the fear of examinig
“race” and cognitive differences; we must get over the fear that somehow “nationalism”
(understood as a fervent but also rational love of country, traditions, and people) is
“bad.”

“What we as conservatives should be seeking is to apply the authentic principles of liberty to questions of racial politics: freedom of contract, freedom of association, avoidance of regulation, and the principle of race-blind justice.”

You can’t believe the above and object to white “nationalism”.  White nationalism is nothing more than a particular flavor of free association.

“Why introduce the unbelievably divisive idea of group divergences in IQ scores?”

Is this a joke?  Is it possible a “conservative” could not have encountered the explanation that this is important because we are being blamed for blacks’ problems?  Is it possible a “conservative” could think it’s fair for us to be scapegoated? 

You are applying outrageous double standards to the disadvantage of whites.

“Why introduce the unbelievably divisive idea of group divergences in IQ scores?”

Perhaps because it beats the hell out introducing the unbelievably divisive idea of white guilt for acts of God.