Kathryn Paige Harden, the authoress of "The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality", is a Stupid Dirty Lying Whore

Harden's Folly by Steve Sailer - https://www.takimag.com/article/hardens-folly/

This Kathryn Paige Harden is a real Tarden. Is she really this stupid or just prone to mendacity in an academic culture that prides itself on free inquiry all the while banishing the slightest hint of heterodoxy? Harden tries so hard to prove it's all about the science while pandering to official dogma with mantra-like incantations about race not being real.

All this suggests US and West in general are a theocracy. To deviate from officialdom, you must try to fool the authorities(and even yourself) that your heresy is not only in tune with but in service to dogma. Harden is like a biologist arguing before the Church that evolutionary theory, far from disproving Creationism, confirms it. The problem isn't so much fooling the others — as one must lie sometimes to 'survive' — as fooling oneself, and Harden seems high on her own supply. Perhaps her formative years under PC made her believe in the official nonsense even as her studies indicate otherwise. Kind of similar to some Chinese wishing to believe their much capitalized economy is an extension of Maoism when its model is closer to Singapore. Her book ought to be called Genetic Hide-and-Seek as that's the game she plays(and in which she can't even find herself). Or the Genetic Shell Game.

Steve Sailer: "elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism"

But is the Kendi Man really about denialism? His only interest seems to be blackity-black, and the likes of him never complain about black over-representation and over-achievement in certain fields, especially athletics. So, to the Kendi Man, it's not about science or genetics but "We blacks deserve everything". It's not about egalitarianism but privilegism by other means, i.e. blacks are owed rewards even when they aren't deserving. Of course, the Kendi Man is just clever enough(or stupid enough, but how can one tell the difference these days?) to drudge up stuff about slavery and Jim Crow as such dominate the current narrative. Mentioning those precludes the need for any rational debate. It's like people used to quote verses from the Bible for instant holy-than-thou points. Kendi's shtick is, "I'm holy because the Narrative favors black magic, so pay me."

Saying the Kendi Man is for egalitarianism is giving him too much credit as idealist or person of principle, however misguided. In truth, he is an arch-tribalist who, if science proved blacks are smarter, would be most welcoming of the finding... along with all the 'woke' idiots whose real religion is black-worship than racial equality. Their fixation on 'not enough black quarterbacks' but never on 'not enough non-black running backs' gives the game away. Inequality in favor of blacks is never a problem. Jewishness is similarly an object of cult reverence. There can never be enough Jews in any department, but when the Jewish share of Princeton students dipped to 10%(still disproportionate given Jews are 2% of US population), that was a huge scandal. The 'injustice' had to be corrected, and Princeton dutifully complied.

Harden: "When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of 'forbidden knowledge'…"

Harden or Tarden is absolutely the worst because she's doubly dishonest. The race-realists are honest about race and racial differences. The anti-genetic ideologues are, at the very least, honest in their anxiety about the implications of genetic science that can overturn the very foundation of post-WWII consensus. Political Correctness isn't honest about the science but honest in its fear of the science, just like the orangutan patriarch Dr. Zaius in THE PLANET OF THE APES isn't honest about facts but honest in his fears. In contrast, Harden pretends the science is good for Political Correctness. She's either a devious player of 4D chess(which I doubt) or a smart person made stupid by a sickly blend of dishonesty and dogmatism, dime-a-dozen in media and academia.

Steve Sailer: "But, no matter how people differ genetically... we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry."

This is doable on the national but not the global scale. Every nation has its share of smarties, middlies, and dummies. All modern systems have progressive taxation and other means to help out the dummies. This is manageable within the national setting, especially in smaller and homogeneous nations. But on a global scale, it's like the Aesop's tale of the dog losing its bone to snatch the seemingly bigger bone reflected in the water. In trying to save the world, the nation will be neglected and fall to pieces. And in the end, the world won't be saved either as it's too big to be saved by any single nation or civilization. Besides, how is a nation supposed to take care of its dummies when it keeps on taking in more people, many of them dummies from all around the world? Perhaps, some of the immigrants will work hard and pay taxes and produce more wealth to take care of the native dummies. But then, the dummies will be further relegated to loser status as there are more competitors in their midst. Worse, what if many of the immigrants are dummies themselves? Sweden used to have a pretty decent system for taking care of its dummies, but the social safety net has frayed because Sweden chose to save Africa and Afghanistan.

Now, it's true that the US has been somewhat different. In most European nations(in the past at least), most of the poor and the dumb were ethnically same as the middle and rich. But in the US, many of the poor have been blacks; worse, blacks haven't been merely poor but prone to criminality and other pathologies, made worse by the fact that they are more muscular and aggressive than whites, which is why so many whites are scared-half-to-death of blacks. Especially following the Civil Rights Movement, black behavior, fueled by rambunctious black pride, has been so unruly that many communities figured they would do better with immigrants than with blacks, a running theme in David Cole's columns. Los Angeles with so many Mexicans may not be paradise but it sure ain't Detroit or Baltimore either.
All these 'progressives' like Harden must decide if they're more about loyalty to the Democratic Party(that gains from mass immigration) or concern for blacks. The dirty secret is the so-called 'progressives' elites want mass-immigration because newcomers are useful buffers between themselves and blacks.
Of course, the problem with blacks is that, even minus immigrant competitors, too many fall through the cracks either due to lower IQ or lack of character(as much of black esteem is about out-hustling others than playing it straight — even the attitude of the smart guy in COOLEY HIGH is, "I can lie and steal too good not to survive").
Also, while many blacks are hostile to more immigration(as they see the newcomers as usurpers and competitors), they identify so closely with the Democratic Party that they favor anything to its advantage. There's kneejerk sense among blacks that what is good for the Democratic Party is good for black people, just like many white conservatives believe GOP is implicitly about white interests. Of course, while a party can boast of its concern for blacks(and Jews and homos), it's taboo for any party or political figure to show any interest that pertains to whites as a group.
But the pro-mass-immigration stance of both parties seem hellbent on replacing both historical blacks and historical whites of America. As Jews control America, it's mainly in their interests. Even as Jews flatter blacks to use against whites, Jews know blacks are the main destroyers of cities where Jewish Power is concentrated. So, Jews want more docile immigrants to replace blacks in urban areas. And Jews want non-white immigrants to replace the historical white Christian America because more diversity among goyim means Jews can play divide-and-rule over them.
With Trump at the helm, it seemed just barely possible for blacks and whites to unite on anti-immigration position. But once Jews engineered the 2020 BLM riots by encouragin the worst tendencies among blacks, the black-white anti-immigration coalition seems dead.
Even MAGA people, after the black riots, would prefer immigrants over blacks who ruin cities. And as immigrants tipped the South to Democratic control which led to the toppling of Confederate monuments, blacks are okay with mass immigration too. Blacks alone couldn’t take the south, but blacks plus immigrants are turning the entire South to the Democratic Party. Same happened in the Midwest. They were mostly Republican, but the combination of white globalists, blacks, and immigrants tipped them Democratic.

The silly whore cannot even decide on her stupid hair color.

As the South fills up with more immigrants, Democrats are gaining over Republicans, and blacks welcome the transformation. But won't blacks face more competition? Or, are black elites unconcerned with the black masses and care only about their own privileges by way of Democrat dominance? Or, do blacks regard non-blacks, white and non-white, as just more people to leech off and suck dry? As blacks have lagged in generating their own wealth, much of their 'economy' depends on milking what others create. It's the same in Africa. Hindus and Chinese are let in to build stuff. Black elites get their cut in the form of bribes and contracts(where non-blacks actually do most of the work). And the unwashed blacks get theirs on occasion through massive looting when riots break out.

Harden and her ilk confuse 'palliative' with 'egalitarian' or 'equitarian'(if such term exists). At most, a free society, even at its most social-democratic-leaning, can be 'palliatarian'(or 'palliational') but never truly 'egalitarian'. If parents have two children and one is big and strong while the other is weak and wobbly, the latter can be provided with palliative care so that he can, at the very least, walk and function in life. But there is No Way he's going to be a high school track star or football player. If a parent has a kid who is very bright and another who is retarded, palliative attention can help out the dummy kid, but he's never going to be a smart kid, let alone a genius. And of course, everyone knows this, but people love to pontificate about 'equity' or 'egalitarian' to either feel good, virtue-signal, or conceal their obsession with elitism. Kamala Harris will yap about 'equity' but has been a whore to the rich, smart, and powerful all her life. Nice cover. That so many conservatives attack the likes of her as 'leftist' means they fell for the trap. She is a whore to the rich and powerful but accused of being 'leftist'(ROTFL), which means her cover has worked.

Harden pretends she's saying something original when the modern order has long accepted the need for social safety nets and palliative measures for the poor, the sick, the old, and etc. Social Security for the old provides a measure of stability, but it's hardly egalitarian. If Social Security made old people equal in health and ability, they would be re-entering the work force. It's precisely because age wears down one's abilities that palliative means are provided for the retired. Same goes for the less intelligent in society. They will never succeed by mainstream standards(unless they win the lottery, the real kind), but we don't want them starving, so they are provided with aid or trained for less demanding jobs.

It is so tiresome to hear proposals for more programs and more funding when so much money has been wasted, is being wasted, and will be wasted on expensive public education for countless blacks, among others, who hardly respond to scholastic overtures. It's like arguing a fat person should be fed more food.

If honest, Harden will admit the US has pretty much given up on a large sector of the black population. All this talk of 'equity' and the pampering of the black elite(as trophies) are really to pretend otherwise. By always pretending to be doing SOMETHING, nothing really has to be done, except by symbolic measures like erecting George Floyd statues and teaching 'woke' catechisms to school children. Indeed, whole swaths of the black population aren't even deemed fit for manual labor, much of which has gone to brown people from south of the border. PC is about talking one way while walking the other way.

Harden: "The fact that income, educational attainment, subjective well-being, psychiatric disease, neighborhood advantage, cognitive test performance, executive function, grit, motivation, and curiosity are all heritable... blah blah"

What really matters is this. While non-genetic factors matter, they are overwhelmed by genetic factors when (1) genetic differences are significant and (2) there is sufficient freedom for most people. If society allows women to play sports but not the men, women will dominate the games even though men are genetically more athletic. But once men are allowed to compete, they will trounce the women(even if women are afforded some slight advantages by society).

PC operates on a fallacy that, because some groups were disadvantaged as a result of socially sanctioned discrimination in the past, the removal of discrimination will result in equality. But did meritocracy in sports lead to equality between blacks and whites? Did Jewish Emancipation lead to equality between Jews and Christians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Inequality can be the result of social policy but can also result from the free reign of genetic competition, in which case social policy often comes into play to narrow the gap somewhat but never totally because dumb people cannot be geniuses and paralympians cannot complete with four-limbed Olympians. Thus, social policy can go FROM favoring one group over another for supremacism's sake TO favoring one group over another for anti-supremacism's sake. In Russia, removal of anti-Jewish laws accorded equality to Jews, but later, 'affirmative action' penalized Jews to make the playing field more equal for non-Jews.

When a socially discriminatory order shifts to free competition, established hierarchies will eventually make way for new ones. It's like American Football went from all-white to mostly black; it's even truer of basketball, which at time, was dominated by whites and Jews. Now, if everyone had the same IQ, same personality, same health, and same physical abilities, a non-discriminatory order may be reasonably egalitarian, but no such society has ever existed.
The rise of new hierarchies has been the story of capitalism where the old aristocracy was replaced by new elites(who became even richer and more powerful). Jews certainly got lots of money and power owing to their IQ in a liberalized order.

Now, how come we can accept Jewish inferiority in certain areas but not black inferiority in any area? We acknowledge Jews are richer because they are smarter but also accept Jews aren't well-represented in sports because they're less athletic than Africans, Germanics, and Slavs. There's no controversy about Jewish lack-of-success in sports. We accept Jewish advantage in one area and disadvantage in another. So, why can't this be of blacks as well? They can run faster and jump higher, but they are relatively lacking in IQ.
Besides, why should any race be the best in everything? In a way, diffusion of talent among the races makes for a kind of fairness or a crude kind of 'equality'. Indeed, the symbiotic relationship between Jews and blacks is based on Jewish business smarts and black rhythm & running. Jews are superior in one area, blacks superior in another. There's no scandal about Jews not making it as boxers and wide receivers, so why is there such outcry about blacks not making it as business moguls or top physicists?

Steve Sailer: "On the other hand, it’s not as if the lowbrow leftists like Ta-Nehisi Coates are losing politically and economically."

Coates is not a leftist but a black tribalist who uses leftish-sounding socio-babble to gain more for his race, especially for himself. When has he, or the Kendi Man, ever griped about the inequality faced by Palestinians? Just like Obama, they know they must flatter Jewish power while dumping on whitey to get their hands in the cookie jar. Calling black tribalists 'leftists' only muddles the issue. We can't have clarity unless we know the real name of the game.

Harden: 'One-drop' social rules have guaranteed that Americans who identify as being White are very unlikely to have any genetic ancestry that is not European, so in this case self-reported race and genetic ancestry appear to converge.

One thing for sure, one-word-rule has rendered the meaning of 'Latino' meaningless. Even brown people with little or no white blood count as 'Latino'(or is 'Latinx') because they speak Spanish. More than anything, this clouds the race issue.

Harden: "…race (unlike ancestry) is an inherently hierarchical concept that serves to structure who has access to spaces and social power."

Just about any concept is hierarchical because everything about mankind is hierarchical. This goes for 'class', 'sex', 'age', 'religion'(With God on our Side), 'nation', 'empire', and etc. 'Education' and 'Academia' are hierarchical too. Colleges are above high school, and elite colleges are above run-of-the-mill colleges. Big Business is bigger than small business.

Also, everything is a double-edged sword. Nationalism can be used as springboard for imperialism, but it can also be the battle cry against imperialism, like in the Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese and Algerian struggles for independence. Race was invoked in the past to keep blacks down, but blacks used race as means of solidarity and unity. Indeed, why are blacks averse to adopting libertarianism and its emphasis on individualism? They know they can gain more pride, prestige, space, and social power by invoking race. 'Race' can be used as expression of supremacism('our race is better than yours' or 'our race has the right to rule over your race'), but it can also be used to gain and secure historical or social space('our race deserves to be free' or 'our race is deserving of dignity', or even 'our race has a right to preserve itself', which is the theme of Zionism in its national manifestation — Charlton Heston as Moses organized on the basis of tribe rooted in the blood covenant when he said "Let My People Go"). Likewise, 'sex' could be used to argue men should rule over women, but feminists have also built an ideology around it for their own 'space'.

It's often said the 'pseudo-scientific' concept of race is the product of 19th century imperialism(with roots in the Enlightenment and rationalism with its mania for classification). So, was mankind a happy lot prior to this Evil Concept? Maybe it wasn't so bad for the peoples conquered, pillaged, and raped by Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Vikings, and Romans because 'race' wasn't a hot ticket item back then? Will America's current racial problems go away if we do away with the concept of race? That's like saying greed and theft will go away if we do away with the concept of 'money' or 'profit'.

If race = imperialism, how does one account for the Spanish Conquest of the New World? It happened long before the 19th century invention of 'race'. The Spanish sent missionaries and converted the savages, and there was much race-mixing, but was that a happy affair? If anything, history suggests the denial of race can be used as a tool of imperialism. It's a denial of group identity, like when Golda Meir said there is no such people or culture as 'Palestinian'; and the Turks deny the existence of Kurds and refer to them as 'mountain Turks'. Using Harden's logic, one may ask, what right did the brown races have to defend themselves against white conquerors when, white or brown, they're all just the same, part of the same human species?
Come to think of it, one way to resolve the racial issue in America is by arguing that the white race didn't really enslave the black race since race doesn't exist. Rather, some people who thought they were white enslaved some other people who thought they were black, but in truth, they were all just people. So, the racial angle of the narrative was pure fantasy. In truth, it was just a case of some people enslaving some people. Therefore, just as it had been wrong for whites to regard themselves as whites lording over blacks, it's about time blacks stop seeing themselves as blacks done wrong by whites. It only furthers the illusion of race.

Now, one people who were long race-or-blood-conscious were the Jews. In contrast, Christians and Muslims were less so as their big theme was converting the souls of all peoples around the world. Now, which people, the Jews or the Christians/Muslims, were more aggressive, invasive, and imperialist? True, Jews joined in the empire-building, but it was on the backs of Christians and Muslims who sought to break through the barriers of race and blood to create a one-world community united before God the Lord. One result is Latin America, a very hierarchical place beset with countless social, political, and economic woes.
Come to think of it, if egalitarian ethos took deeper root in North America, it was precisely because it was more homogenously white, at least in the northern parts and Canada. Egalitarianism, though always out of reach, is easier to approximate with a homogenous population with a narrower range of talents. Easier among beagles than among greyhounds, beagles, pit-bulls, and chihuahuas.

Harden: "A closer look at the science of genetic ancestry makes it clear that 'race does not stand up scientifically, period.'”

The statement is true and untrue depending on how one defines race. And there are varying definitions. Using the stupidest definition of race, her statement would be true. But then, the current age has no problem with stupidity when it comes to sex or 'gender', which has also spawned the pronoun-craze where some dope claims he isn't only a 'she' but a 'they'. Such nonsense is accepted(and enforced) as 'science' in our age. If Harden means that the human species is far more complicated than the simple groupings of caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid, that's true enough. Bushmen are different from Bantu blacks. Tamils are exactly what? And though the American Indians originated from Asia, they seem to have evolved sufficiently into a new category. And Nazi racial science had its crazy side. But, any concept can be invalidated if defined by its falsities or stupidities. Nationalism can be anything from patriotism to jingoism. Love can mean love for the devil or the love of God, in which case 'love is love' is the stupidest idea imaginable.

Still, if she insists the concept of race is wrong because it's burdened with historical baggage, then give us a new term so we can use that instead. But while there's a lot of terminological violence in rejecting the term of 'race', there is terminological silence in coining a new concept. Why the timidity? I don't care if we shouldn't use 'race' anymore. Just give us any term that means the emergence/existence of different groups within the species as the result of tens of thousands of evolution and geographical and climactic separation. Unless such term is provided, no one should reject 'race' because it's the only term we have. Based on new scientific knowledge, what should be the new term for differences created by evolution? How about 'scatterin' as different races arose from organisms within the species scattering all around the world. White scatterin and black scatterin. Or just scats. ('Scat' means animal shit, but that's okay because people like Harden are full of shit. How about 'guano' for race?)

Harden: "…in reality, you could have it exactly backwards, and the genes that matter for education could be more common in the ancestry group with worse educational outcomes."

That'd be more likely in a socially discriminatory or orthodox order. If a group is smart but denied educational opportunities, it will have high IQ but lack in academic prizes. Or, if the group has smart people but is trapped in orthodoxy, like Jews who only studied the Talmud or Chinese who concentrated on Eight-Legged Essays, it will under-achieve in many areas. Evangelicalism and Creationism probably suppressed intellectual achievement among certain Christian groups.

But the problem of inequality in the West is mostly the result of genetic differences. Once discrimination was ended and all groups adopted modern modes, winners and losers were largely chosen by genetics.

Harden: "For example, we now have a polygenic score for predicting the highest level of education attained. In the latest iteration announced this month, using a sample size of 3 million, those in the highest decile were nine times more likely to graduate from college than those in the lowest decile. It works pretty well for whites in the U.K., America, and New Zealand. It works less well for East Asians and worst of all for African-Americans."

East Asians are so education-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in studies regardless of other factors. The ant-attitude defines their outlook. In contrast, blacks are so fun-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in letting the good times roll. The grasshopper attitude prevails among them. In contrast, being neither intensely ant-like or grasshopper-like, whites tend to divide more naturally between those with ant-tendencies and those with grasshopper-tendencies.

Steve Sailer: "Charles Murray... as Frank Sinatra used to say about Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life."

Bad example as Sinatra's character was brainwashed to say that about someone whom he actually loathed.

Sailer: "Seriously, Murray is obviously a superb individual."

Maybe he's a nice guy, but the nicest guy can have evil ideas while a nasty person can espouse humane ideas. What is better? A kindly devil or a mean angel? So, even as Murray's critics may concede he's a nice person, they can still find his ideas to be abhorrent. But this applies to people on the Left as well. Some Stalinists were nice kindly people as individuals.

At any rate, it doesn't matter how nice you are in a theocracy. If you blaspheme God, you are agent of the Devil even if you're the nicest person in town. In the current ideocracy, blacks are magical, and it's heretical to say they are deficient in any way, or if they are, it's all the fault of evil whites. So, no matter how nice or kindly Murray may be, he can only be a blasphemer in the eyes of the establishment.

The real problem is Murray's weakness. Why is he nice to people who hate him? Niceness is a virtue when shown to those who appreciate the gesture. It is a worthless vice when extended to those who hate you and mean you harm. Be nice to those who are nice to you, be mean to those who are mean to you. But Murray is nice to his enemies. Worse, he's nicer to people who mean him harm than those who are willing to lend him an ear. He'd rather suck up to Neocons than side with people like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor(who has problems of his own in cucking to Jews). Murray is a fuddy-dud with 'dangerous' ideas, which means he lacks the cojones to see his ideas to their conclusion. In that, he has something in common with Harden who admits certain things but draws all the wrong conclusions. Murray keeps hoping and pretending that his ideas are compatible with individualism and libertarianism(and with 'respectable society') when they're not. Murray's ideas are rebellious but he plays it respectable, which makes him a fool.

Sailer: "She and Murray disagree over the meaning of 'virtue.' Harden’s New Testament-inspired egalitarian utopianism, in the tradition of political philosopher John Rawls, sees no virtue or merit in a pilot (such as her father) having excellent pilot traits."

She is right, at least partly, on the matter of virtue. If talent or skill = virtue, O.J. Simpson would be a saint. In a way, the problem with the US, no less among the 'woke' than among the 'based', is the delusion of conflating success, especially associated with celebrity and fame, with virtue. People look to athletes and pop stars for 'wisdom'. Conservatives are giddy that the rapper 50 cents be complaining about taxes and thinking of moving to Texas. And then, there was the thing with the vile Nikki Minaj. She went on a rant about her cousin's balls and became an instant hero to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

There is value in meritocracy per se that rewards people based on talent and hard work, but a person's intelligence or professional success doesn't guarantee virtue, even though one can say work ethic is a virtue compared to sloth. The US deep state has lots of of smart and diligent people, but they don't seem very virtuous when it comes to honesty, honor, truth, and justice. When one of them, Edward Snowden, blew the whistle on government abuses, the elite consensus was to totally destroy him.

Perhaps, meritocracy is more about fairness than virtue. It is externally applied and neutral in its lack of a priori favoritism. It observes and chooses for superior talents regardless of other factors. It's like the referee in sports mustn't favor either athlete and must be neutral in rewarding points and penalties based purely on performance. If a lowlife son-of-a-bitch is more skilled than a truly nice fellow, meritocracy favors the former.
But all social orders have sacraments and taboos that make absolute meritocracy impossible. Even a super bright kid will not be admitted to Ivy League if it turns out he said unkind things about Jews, blacks, or homosexuals. In the past, one's reputation could be destroyed if one badmouthed Jesus or is a homosexual. So, the rules change over time, and these rules will favor official norms and dogma over absolute meritocracy. So, success isn't determined only by merit of talent but correctness of creed.
Today, anyone who supports BDS or sympathizes with Palestinians won't gain much success in the elite realm. He will be shut out by the establishment that mainly caters to Jewish supremacism. Imagine any writer or director proposing a movie about the plight of Palestinians. He or she will be blacklisted on the spot and for as long as Jews control Hollywood and the media. Jewish power and wealth were built largely on meritocracy of intelligence and hard work, but Jews also use non-meritocratic means to keep their perceived enemies and rivals from gaining ground. To succeed in today's world, you must bow down to the Jewish-favored creed.
In the past, many Jews had to convert to Christianity to rise up the social ladder. Today, Jews control the gods, and one has to worship the rainbow-homo(as Jews replaced Christianity with Queertianity) to gain access to the Deep State, Big Business, and the like.

Even sports are not purely meritocratic because there's a thing called sportsmanship, i.e. even a great athlete can be penalized for un-sportsman-like behavior. Or he can be expelled from the league for saying unkind things about Zionists who terrorize Palestinians.

Unlike mere fairness(of meritocracy), virtue goes the extra mile and is essentially an internally generated trait. Instead of merely being fair with mankind, it wants to do more to be a better person and/or to make for a better world, sometimes in a self-sacrificing way.

To be sure, meritocracy can be an internally generated goodness, a virtue, in a world where success mostly depends on connections and corruption. If one personally chooses to be meritocratic in such a system, he is going against the tide, going the extra-mile to be a good person. That would be virtue. But in a system where meritocracy is taken for granted as the rule, all it can do is pick and choose winners and losers based on a narrow set of talents. It's about ability then ethics.

Harden: "A lottery is a perfect metaphor for describing genetic inheritance: the genome of every person is the outcome of nature’s Powerball."

Harden is one big idiot. That's the dumbest thing I ever read. The human equivalent of powerball lottery would be if someone is super-beautiful, super-healthy, super-personable, super-leadership-qualitied, super-intelligent, super-athletic(and in all sports from weightlifting to swimming to high jump), super-creative(in music, poetry, and act), and etc. Powerball is about one in a million, or ten million, or hundred million.
Human competition is far more mundane and general. Most people are content to excel in one thing or another. For the vast majority, genetics means having just enough decent genes to finish college, have a nice job, and retire with saving. Powerball-thinking is for likes of Elizabeth Holmes, the too-good-to-be-true nutter, who wanted it all.

Genetics is more like a slot-machine, a rigged one at that. Pull on the genetic lever of a smart man and smart woman, and you're more likely to get a smart kid. Pull on the genetic lever of a dumb man and dumb woman, and you're more likely to get a dumb kid. Of course, smart parents can produce dumb kids, and dumb parents can product smart kids, but genetics means that the game is rigged based on parentage.
Genetics would be more like a lottery in the manner of Rev. Mhoon, that is by randomly pairing dummies with smarties in a mass wedding ceremony. But it's generally not the case that smart women marry some fat guy whose ass crack shows when bending over.

Sailer: "Harden propounds a sophomoric view that intelligence is 'socially valued, not inherently valuable,' and follows that up with a conspiracy theory that early-20th-century eugenicists plotted to get us..."

Harden is correct in the strict evolutionary sense. Every trait has value in relation to the environment. A shark's fins are perfectly engineered for the ocean but useless on land. A chimpanzee's high IQ isn't going to do it any good in the middle of an ocean. A low-IQ fish with gills has infinitely better chance of survival.
And even among human societies, the value of intelligence depends on the culture and social setting. While it's good to be reasonably intelligent in any setting, high IQ would have been useless in most societies through history(and especially pre-history). A strong man who could chuck spears and fight rough was more valued. An Einstein or Plato would have been useless to the Vikings or Zulus.
Extreme high IQ has value only in advanced civilizations with freedom that allows for such trait to explore and express itself. And even though all societies, even the simplest, have recognized the difference between smart and dumb, admiration for high IQ began to matter only with the emergence of advanced societies that capitalized on genius.

But Harden is probably not speaking strictly in an evolutionary sense but to virtue signal that she's more about the heart than brains.

Harden: "…to see intelligence (as measured on standardized IQ tests) and educational success, perhaps more than any other human phenotypes, in terms of a hierarchy of inferior and superior persons is not an accident. It is an idea that was deliberately crafted and disseminated..."

The more a society becomes competitive and achievement-oriented, this becomes inevitable. After all, is a great civilization possible without identifying winners from losers? Jews had their Rabbinical studies. Chinese had their Confucian exams. The Greeks were more multi-faceted as they prized not only intelligence but creativity, athletics, and beauty, which is why they were so foundational in the many pursuits that came to define the West and then the World.
But the Greeks also adopted Christianity, and their highest sense of good came to be piety. Christian piety is less enamored of and even hostile to beauty(vanity), intelligence(skepticism & egotism), athletics(brutality), and creativity(sensuality). Its emphasis on humility would seem anti-superiorist but actually provided yet another opportunity for superiority: holier-than-thou-ism.
On the one hand, Harden works in the Galileo-an world of high IQ science, but on the other, she is a member of new church of PC pieties. And just like Christianity, the new theology of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity has its own superiors and inferiors. The superiors are the Good Good People who repeat the fashionable sacraments(and favor Jews, blacks, and homos uber alles) while the Bad Bad people are those who dare to spout heresies and should be burned as witches. Bad Bad people are also those who support BDS and call for justice for Palestinians who are being 'genocided' by Zionist supremacists.

Now, is the US excessively concerned with IQ and success? If anything, many have griped that the problem of America is anti-intellectualism, populist vulgarity, blissful infantilism, and obsession with sports and pop culture than with science, math, and mental stuff. In any high school, the nerds and geeks are ignored while jocks and 'popular kids' get most of the attention. Judging by mass culture, Americans mainly seem interested in trashy personalities and pop stars. Most Americans would rather watch two women beat the crap out of each other in MMA than read a book by Harden or any female scientist. Also, colleges have been dumbed down over the years. It panders to popular tastes, and for all I know, they're teaching rap poetry in colleges. The rap musical HAMILTON became cause celebre among the elites. That Donald Trump became the champion of so many Americans doesn't say much about their intellectual curiosity either. But is he cruder than HAMILTON or the likes of Lena Dunhum promoted by the elites? Go on youtube, and the videos that get the most views are stupid or trashy as hell, or just plain dumb.

The problem with Americans is they love success and money, which is usually the product of high IQ and diligence, but prefer to conflate success and money with something else. The appeal of Rock/Rap culture is the bad boy wins the girls, drives the fancy cars, and wears all the bling. Bruce Springsteen sang about high school dropouts, rebels, and road-busters, the kind of people who lose in life or end up dead. But he became very rich. Most blacks who emulate rap culture end up dead or in jail, but blacks love the idea of the rich gangsta.
In Arthur Miller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN, Willi Loman's delusion is that success comes by way of the hustle, a firm handshake and likability. Of course, such things matter, but it also requires hard work and real ability. Americans want to believe style should be sufficient for success. Substance is too boring and lame. Success is usually the product of intelligence and hard work, but that's too nerdy or geeky for the American Myth of John Wayne, Elvis Presley, and 50 Cents.

Harden says the less intelligent deserve more help, but that isn't the real problem, especially among blacks. The problem is blacks are soul-corrupted and rebuff any sound advice about what they should do. They find hard work and diligence 'lame' or 'white'. They want success to come with style alone or in sports. But how many blacks can make it to the NBA or NFL? (Black culture in the documentary HOOP DREAMS is surely telling, which is to say depressing.) Has anyone asked Harden, "How can you help people who don't appreciate sound advice?" The forgotten white working class is more likely to respond to constructive advice, but their livelihoods have been outsourced globally. Worse, it is evil for whites to care for fellow whites, not least because Jews demand that whites expend all their energies supporting the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians.

Now, there is a segment of Americans who are IQ-and-success-obsessed, and they are the elites(who are 95% Democratic). Elite parents do everything to make their kids go to elite schools or gain favors through connections — how George W. Bush got to be president, how Hunter Biden isn't in jail but selling junk art for $500,000. The rise of PC partly owes to these parents not wanting to jeopardize their kids' chance at success. They tell their kids to toe the line or else lose it all. Harden is surely part of this IQ-and-success-obsessed class. And these people do everything to gain more wealth and privilege.

But they don't want to admit that they are so focused on themselves and their class; therefore, even as they do everything to win and collect more prizes, they create this bogeyman of the 'racist' to fool the world(and themselves) that THEY are warriors for equality. But in fact, the likes of Jared Taylor and even Charles Murray have zero power in media and academia. All of the establishment elites are ideologically on the same page as Harden. So, if she's honest, she will admit that the most IQ-obsessed people are the so-called 'liberals', her colleague and peers. But instead, she paints herself as a humanitarian fighting an uphill battle against dragon-monsters like Murray. She is really punching down, but because the White Male used to be on top, she relies on historiography to pretend she's punching up against the Eternal White Male Patriarch Oppressor.

Even if Charles Murray and his ilk(and all MAGA people) vanished into the thin air this very second, the problems associated with race, IQ, success, inequality, and etc. would exist just the same among blacks, browns, and whites like Harden... like in San Francisco and Madison Wisconsin, totally libby-dib cities. Indeed, without the racist-as-bogeyman, people like Harden would finally have to face the music and offer a solution to the race problem. THAT would be difficult. But as long as her ilk claims to be fighting the big-bad-white-bogeyman, they can say their hands are tied at the moment and can't really address the problem yet.

If people like Harden are really serious, there is actually a solution. Offer more affirmative action slots for blacks in medicine, law, accounting, and other fields. And then, make sure these white 'progressive' types call on affirmative action talent for service. Need a brain surgery? Make sure it's a black doctor who got his license through AA. Need a corporate lawyer? Get an AA black guy. With so many rich progressive types, this should solve the problem. They got the money to sustain so many black professionals of AA pampering. And why should they complain? They are the ones who say there should be more 'inclusion' and that blacks are just as intelligent, capable, and diligent as any other race. They wouldn't want to be 'racist', would they?

DIS-UNITED STATES: WHY IDENTITY POLITICS ARE THE FUTURE - Black Pigeon Speaks

Charles Murray's latest book FACING REALITY refuses to Face the Reality of Jewish Supremacist Power behind Political Correct Woke-Lunacy — It's Not just a Matter of Facts but of Power — Jews have the Power to willfully Warp our view of Reality

https://vdare.com/articles/charles-murray-s-facing-reality-ruling-class-must-accept-race-differences-or-provoke-the-disaster-of-white-identity-politics

Charles Murray's FACING REALITY: Ruling Class Must Accept Race Differences or Provoke the 'Disaster' of White Identity Politics

So, Murray's First Emotion is to shield Jewish Supremacism from White Liberation.

"Oh master, please don't treat whites so badly. They might rise up to be free and depose you. That would be a disaster."

Never mind the real disaster has been white submission to Jewish Identity Politics. But oh no, Jewish Identity is holy to Murray. Jews are deserving of identity... unlike inferior whites.

His main worry is Jews may lose the servile loyalty of whites if they mistreat whites too much.

Whites awakening and having pride is a 'disaster' for Murray.

It's like someone admonishing a slave-master not to end slavery but to perpetuate it. Gee, the slaves might revolt if they're whipped too hard.

Go easy with the whip if Jews want whites to be happy slaves ho-de-doing and shuffling before the Jewish Massuh. That's Murray's main worry. A cuck to the very end.

Charles Murray is a a real turd. Instead of asking why the elites don't believe the truth, he should ask why the elites are spreading the lie. The ELITES know the truth. Sure, there are plenty of educated dammies, the dogma-driven dogs who have the intelligence but no sense of agency. But many of the elites do know the truth but lie anyway.

But first, who are the ruling elites? Are they colorless and merely based on meritocracy and commitment to 'liberal values'? No, the current elites have a very powerful identity seething with arrogance and contempt. To understand why the LIE is favored by these elites, we need to ask WHO these elites are. Are they merely about riches, privilege, credentials, and power? Or are they about concentrating wealth, power, and influence within a certain group? And that group is what? Take a wild guess. The Eskimos or the Jews?

If all races and groups were equal, meritocracy would produce a colorless ruling class as each group would be proportionately represented at the top. But precisely because of IQ differences among races and groups, even colorless meritocracy leads to domination by a certain group. It's like pure meritocracy in sports has led to black domination and black pride/arrogance in athletics. The end-result has been relative racial homogeneity than diversity in outfits like the NFL and especially the NBA.

Because Jews are smarter, many of them rose to the top and gained more wealth and power. So, there is a concentration of Jews among the elites. But the current elites aren't merely about pride in Jewish achievement. After all, a people could be proud of their disproportionate achievement but still be committed to the principle of colorless meritocracy. Jews don't play that way. Though many Jews did make it to the top by ability, they use their power to rig the system in their favor. Insider knowledge goes a long way to explain why Jews in finance reap such profits. And guess why BDS is suppressed across the nation. And of course, the Tribal control of the legal system ensures that many Jewish crooks get off easy(or get huge bailouts). And even if they're convicted, they are favored for pardons under total shits like Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and etc. Just ask Jonathan Pollard.
There's also the matter of chutzpahistic personality among Jews. (Personality matters. The reason why generic, mild-mannered, golden-retriever-type goyim suck up to Jews is that blandness always loses to salt. Murray is a mild-mannered fuddy-dud, and he gets thrills up his leg by sucking up to Jews with strong personality.) Such personality makes Jews more pushy and arrogant with their power. Anglo Episcopalians are equally smart as Jews, but their blander personality prefers to walk away than get dirty in a fight. (Yellows are also well-represented among higher IQ folks but are even blander than the whites. Thus, they study and follow than think and lead, which is why most of them are cuck-dogs of Jews.) In the past, Anglos had awesome race-ism on their side and used it to great effect. But as 'racism' is now deemed the worst of all possible sins, whites daren't do anything for identity sake or group interest. Not only are Jews stronger in personality but they get pass-over privilege when it comes to 'racism'. What is 'racist' and wrong for whites is noble and wise among Jews. Jews demand that we all support Israel and praise Jews, and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, even if it has led to the victimization of countless Arabs and Muslims, as well as countless whites. It goes to show ideology loses to idolatry. Even though Jews push 'equity' on the ideological level, it never applies to them because of their idolatrous status as a holy people(and also because they control the media and shape the narrative and its heroes & villains). So, even as whites are to be bashed for not being equitable enough, we must never say Jews are the richest and most privileged people on the planet. Why, that would be 'anti-semitic', insufficiently reverential to the great, super-duper, sacred Jews who not only deserve all that power and wealth but out total devotion(even when they kick out teeth out). The relation between Jews and whites is like a Jew trying to push a white guy off a cliff while the white guy goes out of his way to prevent the Jew from falling.

Privately, Jews know the truth about race and racial differences. True, there are still some idealistic Jews committed to the dogma of 'race is just a social construct', but the really powerful and/or consequential Jews at the top know the truth. They know they are smarter. They know blacks are tougher and more aggressive. They know all about racial and ethnic differences. So, why do they push the LIE? It is not out of some do-goody naive dream for social justice or equality but out of their commitment to Jewish Supremacism.
Paradoxically, Jews need to push 'equality' or 'equity'(or whatever it's called in the Current Year) to maintain Jewish supremacy. As Jews control the dogma and narrative, the issue of 'equality' or 'equity' comes down to blacks and whites(than about Jews and goyim). The Main Gripe is 'why do whites have more than blacks?' It's never about 'why do Jews have more than goyim?' or 'how come 70% of the Biden administration is Jewish?' or 'Why are Hollywood, Wall Street, Big Tech, and etc. controlled by Jews?' Indeed, Murray himself speaks of whites, blacks, Asians, and 'Latins' but doesn't mention Jews. (Why is 'latin' still used for brown people from South America and Mexico when they aren't Latin in race or heritage?) Because Murray won't mention Jews, he creates the false impression that naive white people are behind the 'woke' lunacy about race relations, i.e. hopefully Political Correctness will end IF white elites come to their senses. But, that's just wishful thinking.
In truth, Jews control America and planted those lunatic ideas in the minds of deracinated soulless/rootless whites who are now so gullible because they no longer have a real heritage, history, religion, culture, and/or noble race-ism. Hungry for meaning, they readily absorb whatever BS is pushed by prestigious Jews from the top.
'Woke' lunacy and Political Correctness are not the product of do-goody zealotry and misguided naivete though propped up by them. They are the product of willfully malicious agendas of Jewish Supremacists. Of course, many who believe in the nonsense are sincere in their beliefs. No doubt many white idiots who weep to GREEN MILE or prostrate themselves before George Floyd murals are earnestly dumb or honestly stupid. But these are powerless boobs, the suckers. They are like useful idiots during the Cold War, the anti-war types who were unwittingly used as stooges by Moscow. If not for Jewish concentration of power, the current PC idiocy would not exist, at least not to the extent it does.

Besides, the powerful gets to decide the targets of any ideological ire. Thus, 'equity' fixates on whites having more than blacks but not on Jews having more than whites. It fixates on rare instances of blacks being mistreated by white cops but says nothing about countless whites brutalized by tougher and stronger blacks. It says nothing about the lack of equal protection for many individuals(of all races) who were attacked by BLM and Antifa mobs. It's like in the Cultural Revolution, the slogan 'To Rebel is Justified' didn't mean one could rebel against Mao and the Gang of Four. No, you could rebel only against targets approved by Mao and the Gang of Four. It's no different today in the current West. 'Equity' means kvetching about blacks having less than whites, not blacks or goyim having less than Jews. Even though Jews have the most by far, they hog moral credit by berating whites for having more than blacks. This way, Jews get to own more and morality at the same time. Even though they have more than whites, as spokesmen for the blacks they hog the limelight as champions of 'equity' by bashing 'white privilege'. Rather pathetically, rich white-cuck elites ape the Jews and play the same game. Bidens and Clintons raking it in and living like new royalty but always berating far less fortunate whites for 'exclusion' and 'social injustice'.

But Murray won't mention any of this because he has a giant kosher dildo up his pitiful arse. He is truly one of the most despicable turds that ever lived. In some ways, he's worse than full-blown cucks who are at least consistent in their cravenness; they never deviate from the official line and are rewarded accordingly. In contrast, Murray has taken lots of lumps from Jews in the media and academia, but he sucks up to them all the same. But then, Jared Taylor is even more despicable. At the very least, Murray is somewhat tolerated by the Establishment(because he rarely mentions Jews in a critical way) and promotes libertarianism while denigrating any notion of white identity or consciousness.
Indeed, Murray is sometimes useful to Jews because he will say what's on their minds in a genteel watered-down way. This way, Jews can outsource it to Murray and don't have to dirty their own hands. After all, even as Jews push the nuttery of PC and blackness, they are anxious it may get out of hand, as indeed it did in 2020 with Antifa and BLM getting overzealous and hurting some Jews in the bargain as well. It is then that Jews pull out Murray and publish his views. This way, Jews get to temper the extremism of PC by using Murray as proxy, all the while feigning moral outrage that someone could hold such views. A sneaky way of playing both sides. This means Murray has some value to the Jews. They keep him around as mild and moderate Mr. Crime-Think when things get too out of control(and a bit of counter-narrative is necessary), and on some level, Murray seems to know of and value his little niche in the system. So, if Murray were to speak the total truth, he would have something to lose. His shtick is walking the fine line between the Correct-Think and Crime-Think. In contrast, Taylor is utterly vilified and hated by Jews and has nothing more to lose but carries on with a ridiculous fantasy of smart Jews finally seeing the light and joining with the likes of him.

The current lunacy is the result of Jewish Power. Jews push 'equity-wokery' to blame and shame whites into moral obeisance in order to secure Jewish Supremacism. Critical Race Theory is essentially Jewish reworking of antisemitism whereby Jews-as-villains are replaced with whites-as-villains. There is an element of revenge in all this, but even that isn't the main driving force, which is Jewish Supremacism. Jews are no dummies, and they know they got numeracy but not the numbers. Whites got the numbers. So, if Jews are to maintain their supreme position, they need white cuckery, white submission, white obedience, and etc. before the Jewish Master. Jews use tons of bribes/carrots, but that only goes so far. Japan spread money around in the 1980s, but loyalty based on cash only goes so far. Also, allegiance based purely on money can easily be reviled(as China is finding out these days, especially with Australia). China spent a lot of money to buy influence and ended up being accused of corrupting the world, and people who took the money are shamefacedly cutting ties.
If Jewish Power was solely based on money, it would be vulnerable to exposure and condemnation, much like the money power of Chinese and the Saudis. Jewish Money Power exceeds that of any other in the world, but how come so little is talked about it, especially among whites, the key demographics for Jewish supremacist power? In the past, Jews spent a lot of money and bought a lot of 'friends', but they also faced the danger of being called out for their nefarious influence.
Jews know this and decided to control whites not only through gold but guilt. Give some pieces of gold to the 'good whites' who do as Jews tell them but also instill white hearts with massive 'guilt' so that whites won't dare Name the Jew. So, Jews endlessly bring up the Holocaust and say whites are responsible for all eternity and must atone and make amends. Or any white criticism of Jewish Power is deemed 'antisemitic', thus related to 'nazism'.
But emphasizing Jewish tragedy isn't sufficient to control white hearts forever. After all, Holocaust is receding into history. Whatever might have happened in World War II, the fact is Jews have become the richest and most powerful people in the world, which is becoming impossible not to notice. Also, Jewish Power has become Nazi-like and murderous, which is why criticism of Zionism is growing on the Left. If it were merely between whites and Jews, 'white guilt' may well grow weaker because whites would realize that the Jews who are always berating whites are the richest and most privileged people on Earth. Whatever Jews may have suffered in history, it's not a good look for a rich and powerful people to always play victim.
Unlike Jews however, many blacks will always remain on the bottom. Therefore, they are good material with which to bait long-term 'white guilt'. Unlike Jews who made it out of the ghetto and live in penthouses, many blacks are still stuck in the ghetto. So, while it'd be absurd for Jews to complain about their socio-economic conditions and blame it on whites, this can be done indefinitely with blacks. Jews can always point to blacks and say, "They are mired in poverty because of YOU WHITES", and enough whites will fall sucker for this. And even those whites who see through the LIE will pretend to go along because they won't be hired or promoted unless they are ostensibly with the program. This way, Jewish control of whites isn't just through money/gold but through soul and guilt. Thus browbeaten and sullen with shame, whites seek redemption for their 'racism', and Jews suggest the way: Endless sucking and cucking up to Jews and their two favored allies, blacks and homos. Notice there is nothing about how whites should care more about Palestinians, investigate Jewish power/privilege, or condemn supremacist Wars for Israel that killed countless Arabs/Muslims. If anything, Jews use BLM to whitewash their own racial supremacism in the Middle East. With blacks as bought-off allies, Jews strut around as champions of 'anti-racism' — after all, they are allied with Noble Negroes — , which gives moral cover for what they do to Palestinians. As long as Jews paint the bombs 'gay' or 'BLM', so many educated whites(the key support-demographics for Jewish Supremacism) will turn a blind eye to the evils of US foreign policy. How can the US military be bad when it spreads the gospel of BLM and globo-homo around the world? Jews favor ni**ers to get a free pass for killing san-ni**ers. And US military's globo-homo policy means it has the moral right to fuc* the world in the ass. For many brainwashed woke-cucks or wucks, just about ANYTHING is justified if wrapped in the symbol of BLM or Globo-Homo, in a manner similar to the dumb mantra of 'Support the Troops' justifying wars for idiot conzos.

That's what this is really about. And Jews have gotten even more extreme in pushing PC lunacy because of the internet and Trumpian populism. Jews are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. They know that White Liberation may well mean the end of Jewish Supremacism.

Now, Murray knows all this. He knows it but pretends otherwise because, all said and done, he is a worthless bald-headed cuck maggot whose First Emotion is mindless reverence for Jews whom he deems the Chosen Race due to their higher IQ. If some white women got jungle fever for black dongs, some white men(not least in HBD circles) have Juggle Fever for acrobatic Jewish brains. Murray is so awed by Jewish Genius, the summit of 'human achievement', that he grovels before it as the greatest thing in the universe. It's like master and dog. No matter how much Jews kick him like a dog, his sappy dream is, "I hope they realize I'm a good dog with everlasting loyalty, because my main duty as a goy is to serve the superior race, the one with Jewish Genius." So, just like a dog is loyal even when its master does wrong, Murray is loyal to Jews on a similar basis. While Murray knows full well that Jews sometimes act badly, he has internalized their superiority vis-a-vis goyim, and that means, all said and done, Jews must rule and goyim must serve. The main meaning of his life comes not from libertarian ideology but an idolatrous devotion to Jews as the Superior Race(just like some whites have similar feelings about blacks as the superior race of song-dong-strong.) What a worthless cuck. This lowlife even changed his view on 'gay marriage' because some of his RICH FRIENDS happen to be homo. You see, the status-minded Murray won't dare offend the 'better kind of people', especially Jews. And if Jews say 'homo is holy too', Murray bends over to the homos and gladly takes it up the arse.

He pretends in the latest book that these 'better kind of people' are just misguided and misinformed when, in fact, they know the truth but maliciously spread the lie to guilt-bait whites into obeisance. Imagine there's a master and a dog. But suppose the master, a nasty son-of-a-bitch, gets another dog, a bigger and tougher one, and uses it to attack and humiliate the original dog. The master knows full well what he is doing and sadistically enjoys the cruelty, but suppose the original dog prefers the fantasy that the master is acting this way out of ignorance and in total innocence of the fact that the new dog is bigger and more vicious. Stupid dog.

Murray, who won't FACE THE REALITY of Jewish Power and its abuses, recommends that we face the reality of race. Pot calling kettle black.

This isn't just a matter of facts but of power. Certain facts are suppressed and certain fictions are pushed because of who has the power.

Truth is power-neutral. Facts are independent of any ideology, any agenda, any side. Of course, every power tries to selectively use facts to favor its own agenda. Like with the question, is the cup half full or half empty. Still, the fact is the water fills half the cup, something that can't be denied by both sides... that is if they have any respect for facts. On the matter of race, Jews don't go with cup-half-full or cup-half-empty argument, because, no matter how one slices or dices it, it is threatening to the Narrative. So, they push the NO-WATER-IN-CUP argument when, clearly, water fills half the cup(suggesting both nature and nurture).

Facts don't assert themselves. It doesn't matter how true something is. It doesn't on its own express its truth, just like a gun, no matter how powerful, doesn't shoot on its own. Gun has to be shot by a person. And people communicate and spread messages. People love power-and-control above all, even above facts and truth. It's why we have so many lawyers. People don't hire lawyers to speak the truth but to twist facts and weave fiction to win cases. If politicians must lie to win and face losing with the truth, they will favor the lie over the truth.
Of course, facts are often crucial to power. Those with better understanding of chemistry make better medicine. Those with better understanding of ballistics make better guns. Those with better understanding of soil produce more food. So, better mastery of facts leads to more wealth and power. The West beat out the Rest because its methodology became more attuned to facts of reality.
But just because people use facts to gain wealth/power doesn't mean they prefer facts over wealth/power or hold them in equal regard. No, people love power more, and if suppressing facts will favor their power, they will do just that. Thus, when power favors facts, it's more opportunism than a matter of principle. Why are referees necessary in sports? All the owners, all the coaches, all the players, and all the fans know the rules that must be abided by. And yet, referees are necessary to call foul because the priority in sports is to win. If a foul is committed to the advantage of one's team, it's almost always overlooked(by owners, coaches, players, and fans) even though everyone knows it's a foul. In the 2020 election, even many Democrats must know that there was massive fraud. But those facts are secondary to their winning, their power. It's just human nature. Power has its own logic, and this is where fascism is most useful unlocking the true nature of power.

Truth is Jews control the US, not least its academia and media. And for over a generation, Jews have been using news, education, and entertainment mainly to increase their own power and to weaken rival goyim, especially the whites. THAT is the main driving force behind Jewish media and academia. While Jews will favor facts that favor them, they will almost always favor fiction over facts when it's to their advantage. We saw this with Russia Collusion Hoax, BLM lunacy, lies about Syria & Assad, Covid hysteria, and etc.

Now, why would this be any different with the subject of race? As long as Jews regard the facts of racial differences(being the real factors behind America's problems) as a threat to their control over whites(which ensures their control over America), they will do anything to bury those facts. Jewish Supremacism needs White Submission, and Jews decided long ago that White Guilt is the best way to guarantee white moral paralysis and lack of agency, thus putting them at the mercy of Jews and their allies, blacks and homos. If Murray hasn't the guts to FACE THIS REALITY, he shouldn't be lecturing about how we need to face up to the reality of race. He needs to dwell less on facts and more on WHICH power is suppressing those facts and WHY.

NICK FUENTES: YOU CANNOT BE PART OF THE SYSTEM AND AMERICA FIRST

Notes on THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST 'RACE' by Edward Dutton — Species Cannot Exist without Race — Globalism pushed Ideology of Equality but Idolatry of Black Supremacy — Jewish Perfidy in the Discourse on Race

https://www.unz.com/article/the-arguments-against-race/

--Is “race” an outmoded, morally dubious idea that was deservedly cast into the dustbin of history, along with Stalinism, astrology, and blood-letting? Many say so.--

A hysterical(and tiresome) argument used by the Thought Police so many times. Of course, the problem with such line of argument is everything has a dark side. After all, capitalism did much harm as well as good. Nuclear science led to wonders but also destruction of cities. Socialism can mean anything from radical communism of the Khmer Rouge to the welfare state(a fact of life in all modern societies). So, if critics of race argue that racial ideas may lead to great harm, most of us would concur. But this is true of anything. Without fire, there is no civilization. But fire has also burned down entire cities. Same with water. Without rain we are dead, but floods are dangerous.

So, we need to be cautious with ideas. The problem isn't so much the concept of race per se as the radicalization of racial science into hardline ideology, as with National Socialism. (Indeed, if Adolf Hitler and his followers were more like Benito Mussolini, who was less into racial ideology than the 'democratic' Anglos were, the horrors of Nazism could have been avoided.) Socialism need not be khmer-rouge-ism, and racial knowledge need not lead us to something like National Socialism(or the more extreme forms of Zionism). The real danger is not socialism or racialism(or race-ism) but radicalization of any idea. This even goes for democracy. Radical Democratism has led to 21st century wars that destroyed millions of lives, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. The US, by invoking 'muh democracy' at every turn, has justified its despicable and murderous acts of neo-imperialism. Radicalism is extremism, moral narcissism, and moral puritanism. "I am so very right, you are so very wrong" or "If you're not with us, you're against us."
So, the problem isn't race-ism per se but radical racism. (By race-ism, I mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. To emphasize the -ism element of the term, the dash[-] is used: Race-ism. It is not to be confused with 'racism' that is usually meant to mean racial hatred and supremacism, esp of the white kind.) When we consider most ideas, we don't automatically obsess over the most extreme manifestation. So, 'socialism' doesn't mean Stalinism or Maoism. Those are forms of radical socialism, but most forms of socialism haven't been extreme. Likewise, when we say 'capitalism', we don't mean the most extreme kind of libertarian plutocracy with no protections for workers and the poor.
And yet, when it comes to the matter of race, people automatically jump to conclusions and assume it's about extreme hatred, mass repression, and mass murder. Of course, it has a lot to do with Jewish control of media and narrative. Indeed, the discussion of race is not unlike the discussion of Jewish Power. For example, even the slightest noticing and criticism of Jewish Power is denounced as 'antisemitism'. So, if you notice Jewish Power and its abuses, you are automatically a 'Nazi'. You are to be denounced, that is unless you get on your knees and roll over like a dog. On some issues, taboos dominate the discourse in the West. This is where Reason and Enlightenment Values break down. While we can be rational and honest on most things, we must suspend our reason, skepticism, and critical faculties on certain matters, especially if they're 'triggering' to Jews, blacks, and homos. Their FEELINGS count for more than demonstrable facts. Blacks are the most violent and murderous, but the Taboo says we must get on our knees and bawl about BLM.

--(Anti-racists insist) there is no clear way to divide different races. They merge into each other, with great variation in-between. A version of this argument is that there is no specific gene that is found only in one specific race. It can be countered that races are, of course, not entirely discrete categories because, if they were, they would be more like species, or perhaps genera, families, or orders on up the taxonomic scale.--

It is so obvious but PC follows its own twisted logic. We all know race is not species. Races are differences within a single species. Also, different species exist only because different races evolved into different species. If races don't exist, species cannot exist. For example, take the common ancestors of (1) the apes that became the chimps and (2) the apes that became humans. At one time, there were no separate species of humans and chimps. Their deep ancestors belonged to the same species of ape. But within that species, groups went separate ways and they began to diverge gradually. For a long time, there were merely different races of the same ape species. But little by little, the differences accumulated, and something resembling separate species arose. One branch became the chimpanzee and the other branch became the ape that eventually evolved into humanhood. In other words, a species cannot suddenly split into new separate species. Rather, groups within it can gradually diverge and change. This process is race-ization. For a long time, the emerging races still belong within the same species. But over prolonged periods, especially in extreme geological separation from one another, they can evolve into separate species.
This is true of mankind as well. If human races were to remain separate for another million years, they could evolve into different species. Evolution has proven this to be the case. For now, all human races belong to one species. But they have developed different characteristics, and there is a chance that they could evolve into separate species in the next 100,000 or million years. At any rate, if race isn't real, then species isn't real. Any organism, in order to evolve into a new species, must first evolve into different races(within the species). Consider tigers and lions. At one time, they had a common ancestor. It's not like this common ancestor suddenly split into species tiger and species lion. Instead, it began to diverge into different races of itself. One race eventually became the tiger, and the other race eventually became the lion. They began as different races but eventually became different species.

Also, mixed-race people can exist ONLY BECAUSE there are different races. After all, there can't be mulattos in a world that is all-white or all-black. There can't be mestizos in a world that is all white or all brown. Those mixed-breeds came into existence ONLY BECAUSE different races interbred. If we mix apple juice with grape juice, the mixture exists only because apple juice and grape juice existed in the first place. It would be stupid to deny the reality of apple juice and grape juice because a mixture exists. If anything, the mixture proves the existence of the other two.

--Even if it were true that no unambiguous line can be drawn between races, this does not undermine the utility of race. The line between Grizzly bears and Brown bears is blurry, too—but you still know one when you see one and making distinctions between these subspecies is meaningful.--

Brown Bears and Grizzlies are not a good example. They are nearly indistinguishable. Generally, grizzlies are a bit smaller than brown bears, but they are almost the same. A better example is brown bears and polar bears. Though considered as separate species, they are actually different races of bears if we use the Rule of Fertility. Horses and donkeys are separate species because their offspring, the mule, is infertile. Likewise, a lion and leopard can mate and produce offspring but it is infertile. In contrast, the offspring of a polar bear and brown bear, like the offspring of members of different human races, is fertile. Therefore, polar bear and brown bear are really separate races within the same species. But who can deny the differences between the brown bear and polar bear? Just because hybrid bears exist doesn't mean that the differences between brown bears and polar bears are meaningless, insignificant, or negligible. Also, contact between those races of bears usually means more danger to the polar bears. Though polar bears are equal in size and weight, brown bears are built more sturdily and are more aggressive. So, in most encounters, polar bears lose out and take 'white flight' from the brown bears. (For a long time, scientists believed Neanderthals to be a different species of humans, but recent DNA studies show that 5% of European DNA is Neanderthal. That means the offspring of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were fertile, and that means Neanderthals were another race of humans. But, the differences between Neanderthals and other humans were significant.) Another useful example comprise wolves, coyotes, and dogs. Like human races and polar/brown bears, wolves, coyotes, and dogs can mate and produce fertile offspring. That means, from a scientific viewpoint, they all belong to the same species. But should we ignore the very real differences among wolves, coyotes, and many breeds of dogs simply because various mutts and mongrels exist among them? Only a fool would say so. The fact is coyotes are no match for wolves in combat, and wolves can demolish any dog, just like a pitbull can demolish a beagle(just like a Nigerian can demolish any Briton or Japanese). A coyote that ignores the threat posed by wolves because a weasel tells it, "Hey, don't be racist as if wolves are different and pose a danger" is a dead coyote.

--Some say that race is illegitimate or immoral because it is steeped in Western history (and thus things like slavery and oppression), as well as the supposedly myopic and suffocating outlook of “Western science.” But this same argument could be made about almost any concept—including the ones that supposedly undermine or overcome Western hegemony... If race is “problematic” because it’s Western, then, presumably, we cannot use Western concepts at all to analyze anything non-Western.--

Very true. Chemistry and physics are also Western Concepts. So, does that mean the world should reject medicine resulting from Western chemistry? Should people deny the laws of physics discovered by Western Scientists? Is atomic power just an illusion steeped in 'western bias'? The West developed the scientific method, and that meant it was applied to just about everything. As humans are part of biological reality, a scientific view led to categorizations of race.
Now, were all ideas associated with race valid? No, but that could be said of any scientific field. So many medical ideas once accepted as true turned out to be false. Physicists once speculated outer space was filled with ether. Science improves with more observation, testing, trials, and experiments. But in order for it to improve, there must be more truth, integrity, and honesty. There is no question that National Socialists misconceived and misapplied racial theories. Indeed, they were less interested in the science of race than in the ideology of race. Hitler and his cohorts(and the favored partisan hack scientists) insisted on the Correct Theory of Race that put 'Aryans' at the center. If they were truly interested in racial science, they would have allowed debate, but they didn't. Aryanism became the national mythos of Germany. It was not unlike the concept of Chosen-ness among Jews except that it was explained in scientistic terms. Likewise, Marxism was less a rational economic theory than a prophecy. While claiming to be 'materialist' and 'scientific', it had more in common with Judeo-Christian vision of apocalypse and redemption. Communism was secular-christianity, and fascism was neo-paganism. Marxism was a form of scientism than real science. But as science gained prestige, all sides claimed to have 'science' on their side. Indeed, even Creationists play that game. They are allied with Intelligent-Design people who argue that one can 'scientifically' prove the existence of the supreme being behind the cosmos. Even more crude forms of Creationism pretend to 'scientifically' explain how mankind once lived alongside dinosaurs by pointing to 'archaeological' evidence. And Sigmund Freud insisted that his theory of sexuality was purely scientific when it had more to do with speculation, personal hang-ups, and resentment toward goy society.

Sir Isaac Newton

At any rate, the fake/flawed radical racial 'science' of the National Socialists wasn't supplanted by true, rational, and improved science but by the fake/flawed radical anti-racial 'science' of Jewish Deracinators. It was out of the frying pan into the fire. The world went from false racial science to false anti-racial science. It went from one radical certainty to another. It was like going from a crazy pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat ONLY meat to another pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat NO meat. How about a truly scientific dietary plan that argues for meat, grains, and vegetables?

Now, given World War II and the Shoah, there is no doubt that the radical racism of the National Socialists did great harm. And we can understand why people became freaked out about race. But the radical anti-racism since World War II(which especially accelerated in the 1960s)has also done great harm. Mass migration of non-whites into the West will surely lead to the fall of Western Civilization. And lack of white defenses against blacks will lead to racial doom for white folks. Europeans Europeanize, Africans Africanize. If Europe fills up with Africans, it will be Africanized like the Dark Continent(or Detroit).

Consider the Jesse Owens and Joe Louis Narratives. They are often invoked to discredit the notion of 'Aryan Supremacy'. You see, blacks beat the 'Aryans', and that means Nazi 'racism' was all nonsense. But that is only one side of the coin. Did Owens and Louis' achievements prove that races are equal? They would have IF Louis fought Schmeling to a draw and if Owens finished in a tie with the 'Aryan' sprinters. But in fact, Louis destroyed Schmeling, and Owens beat the white runners by a considerable margin. So, even if their achievements blew 'Aryan supremacism'(in athleticism) out of the water, they demonstrated the fact of black athletic superiority.
What is the social implication of this? Tougher blacks can beat up whites. And in Europe, the racial violence is usually black on white, just like in the US and Brazil. That means blacks end up feeling contempt for white wussy weaklings. That means white males are robbed of manhood. It means white women become infected with jungle fever. BAMMAMA(blacks are more more muscular and more aggressive) leads to ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). It means total sexual triumph of blacks over whites. White males turn into pathetic cucks who watch their women go over to blacks who not only have tougher muscles but bigger dongs. (But then, the very people who say race is false and that 'we all bleed red' are also saying whites should import more blacks because blacks are so awesome in song, strong, and dong. So many Jewish-funded movies, TV shows, and advertising are predicated on Jungle Fever that says white women should reject white men and go with black men because the latter are superior in manhood. Go figure. They say one thing but show another. They say 'race is not real' but show 'look at the big muscular Negro with the big dong compared to that flabby wussy maggoty white boy'. The ideology is 'anti-racist' but the idolatry is totally 'racist' in favor of blacks uber whites.)

It's also been said that German science suffered due to the exile of Jewish scientists during the National Socialist era. But if all races and human groups are the same, why was it a loss for Germany and a gain for the US when Jewish scientists went from one nation to the other? It was a loss for Germany and gain for the US only if Jews are smarter and superior at scientific research. That would imply group differences are true, or at least true enough.

Now, there is a kernel of truth in the denunciation of Western bias in the science of 'race'. While it's true that virtually everything related to modern science, math, medicine, and technology emerged from the West, the non-human endeavors surely got a more objective treatment than human-related ones. Even today, hard sciences are more scientific than social sciences(that are never fully devoid of tribal or ideological bias). Now, there were examples of ideological bias in hard science as well, e.g. National Socialist science that denied the physics theories of Jewish physicists and Lysenko-ism in the USSR.
Still, generally speaking, when it comes to hard science, the West transcends the West, i.e. the objective is to arrive at the truth, not to trump the specialness of any people, nation, or civilization. When a German chemist or physicist works on a project, he is seeking the truth, not waving the banner of German pride. Thus, even though modern science developed in the West, it goes beyond culture and race. The scientific method can be used by any nation or people.
But the topic of race, even under scientific scrutiny, was never entirely empirical or objective. Rather, many racial scientists had ideological agenda or something to prove. And this has been the case in other nations as well. Chinese, for example, long insisted that they evolved from Peking Man than some group that emerged from Africa. Japanese racial 'scientists' insisted there is something 'unique' about the Japanese. Much of this is closer to mysticism than science. Jewish anthropologist Jared Diamond has argued against race but says DNA studies can identify who is really Jewish and who isn't. Humans can be objective about lots of things but not themselves. They are too vain, too proud, too anxious, and/or too much at competition with, dominant over, or servile to other races to be totally objective. Take the controversy of "Were Ancient Egyptians black?" By the American one-drop rule, many Ancient Egyptians could be said to have been black. But as they were more Caucasian than Negroid, one could argue they were more 'white'. Or, are Jews more 'Semitic' or 'European'? Even Jews are confused about this.

Still, if there was a Western Bias in racial science in the past, the proper way forward is to be rid of those biases and approach race more scientifically than to throw the baby out with the bathwater and pretend the very concept of race is untrue. But then, was anti-racism really sincere? I don't think so. Deep down inside, many Jews surely believed in race and only pretended it didn't exist because racial thinking might probe into differences among whites, blacks, Jews, and others that might prove to be inconvenient for Jewish Power. After all, even as Jews took pride in having higher IQ over goyim, their fear was that goyim might realize this and begin to resent Jews for their superior intelligence that leads to more wealth and power, which could be used by Jews to boost Jewish Power at the expense of white interests. The fact that Jews insist on the abolishment of white identity all the while insisting that whites revere, support, and lionize Jewish Identity & Power gives the game away. But white cuckery has become so ingrained in the white psyche that whites are in habitual denial of what is really going on. Take the recent election debacle. Jews are most responsible for the Crazy 2020, but most conservatives are blaming China, China, China, a secondary player if that in the fall of White America. Denial of racial differences in IQ is also useful to Jews in perpetuating 'white guilt' & white submission and in directing black rage at whites. If it were known that black failure in education and economic achievement owes to genetic factors, whites would feel less guilty about their history. Fading of white guilt would mean it'd be harder for Jews to guilt-bait whites into seeking redemption by sucking up to Jews(and blacks and homos). Also, if blacks realized they're on the bottom due to lower IQ while Jews are on top due to higher IQ, blacks would be most envious and resentful of Jews. So, it is advantageous to Jews to blame black failure on white 'racism' and to keep blacks hating whites above all.

--While the history of words is interesting, the fact that the meaning of words change over time is simply irrelevant to our purposes here. We are clear that by “race” we mean breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments.--

True enough as 'gay' can mean happy or homosexual, but still, maybe it's useful to come up with a new term. As races developed through genetic changes over geographical distances, maybe racial science should be called geo-netics or geonetics. And maybe 'geon' should be used for 'race'.

--Another supposed problem with race is that developing the concept leads to bad consequences.--

How about we denounce Zionism because it led to bad consequences for Palestinians? Also, if race is a relatively recent idea(and a toxic one at that), could it be said human history was more pleasant in the pre-race eras? Bantus didn't have a concept of race, but they sure butchered a lot of people all across Africa. Maybe the Mongols didn't think in terms of race, but they sure could conquer, pillage, and kill. Maybe the Conquistadors lacked the scientific notion of race, but they should committed many horrors in the Americas. And before them, the Aztecs could be cruel as hell.
In contrast, the Anglos were profoundly mindful of race and racial differences, but one could make a strong case that they did most to advance mankind as a whole. Didn't Anglos do more for their colonies than the less race-minded Spanish and the French for their colonies? And didn't Anglo enslavement of blacks lead to more advancement for blacks than enslavements under Arabs and other Africans who presumably didn't think in terms of race? So, one fallacy could be countered with another. If Political Correctness says, "The concept of race is evil because of all the bad things done in its name", it could be countered, "The concept of race is good because Anglos, the most racial-minded of all imperialists, did most to advance and lift up mankind." Was it better for blacks to come under Arab rule or Anglo rule? Who did better in the Americas? Blacks who lived under Anglo-American power or blacks who under less-racially minded Spanish/Portuguese power? Anglos were more 'racist' toward the Chinese than the Mongols were. It's doubtful the Mongols called the Chinese 'chinks' since they were also a slanty-eyed people, but China achieved more under Anglo intrusion than under Mongol rule. Of course, such line of argument is fallacious but no more than the anti-racist school of thought that seeks to discredit all notions of race because some radical racists did bad things.

Another thing. Anti-racism can be used to justify imperialism. After all, if races are all the same, it wouldn't make a difference if People A invade and rape People B. After all, they are all the same. Chinese are taking over Tibet and push 'anti-racism'. They say Chinese and Tibetans are all brothers under the skin, and Tibetans should just mate with Chinese and become fellow Chinese. On the surface, this sounds humanitarian and 'inclusive', but it also means doom for Tibetans as the Han Chinese outnumber them by a huge margin. Latin American elites justify the history of conquest, rape, and domination on the premise that there is only ONE people in Mexico and South America. Supposedly, people don't see 'race' because they are all equal and all mixed. But it totally ignores the fact that the indigenous brown peoples were invaded, raped, and dominated by another people. 'Inclusion' is often a justification for invasion.

Another thing. Some anti-racists argue that race-mixing is beneficial. But if all races are the same, why would race-mixing be beneficial when all groups are the same under the skin? Either the PC-pushers are stupid and ignorant of their contradictions or they are mendacious and push for race-mixing with full knowledge that it will favor certain races over others. Interracism between whites and blacks, for example, favor blacks. Not only do mixed-race people identify as black, but it's usually black male and white female. Black men sexually conquer white women while white men are relegated to cucky-wuck dork-hood.

--Beyond that, it can be convincingly argued that suppressing the concept of race leads to very bad consequences. If a South Asian person has a kidney transplant and is given the kidney of a White person, then his body will likely reject it, elevating the possibility that the patient will die of kidney failure.--

All very true, but that is a petty example. It's about individuals and illness. No civilization ever went under because people died of disease. After all, Europe survived the Bubonic Plague and Spanish Flu. So, the medical argument for race is weak. The real danger of overlooking the issue of race is that the white race might not wake up to the black threat and Jewish threat. Blacks are superior in brawn, and Jews are superior in brain. So, when whites allow Jews and blacks to run wild and free, Jews will take over elite institutions/industries and use their power to weaken white identity and unity. And blacks will dominate sports and take over as the new idols of national prowess. Black athletes who destroy white British ones are hailed as National Champions, and that means white girls will grow up with jungle fever and white boys will be instilled with cuckitis. As whites come to celebrate blackness as 'badass' and 'cool', it will be deemed especially evil to have any doubts about blacks. And that means whites won't be able to say NO to further black immigration-invasion. And this will mean more black crime and black violence against whites in the streets and schools. And that will mean the end of Europe. THAT is the real evil of anti-racism.
However, the real danger of the Current West isn't ideological anti-racism but idolatrous pro-racism in favor of blacks. Today, many whites welcome more black immigration not on the basis of equality of the races but superiority of blacks. Whites in UK and France revere blacks as sports champions, rappers, twerking mamas, and big-donged studs. And this idolatrous supremacy of blacks is disseminated all around the world. There are tons of black-centric advertising in Germany and Poland, even in Russia. Even Japan, so distant from Europe and Africa, is falling into the Jungaru Trap. Japanese women are whores who mate with blacks, and their kids are taking over Japanese sports, and Japanese elites, ever so servile to the West, are pushing for 'Japan That Can Say Ho'.

--“There are more differences within races than there are between them.” This is wheeled out with great profundity by biased scientists when interviewed in biased newspapers, without any references. It has come to be known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy,”--

It's a fallacy alright. Besides, how can there be differences within the race when race doesn't exist in the first place? If race doesn't exist, then the differences within and outside the 'race' would be the same.

My take on Lewontin's BS is simply this. Most people within any group are average and part of the norm. So, even if it may well be that the genetic difference between a retarded Japanese giant and a genius Japanese midget is greater than between an average Japanese and an average Nigerian, the fact is most Japanese are not genius midgets or retarded giants. If we were to randomly pick two Japanese, they would most likely be average. Same if we randomly pick two Nigerians. Most Japanese belong to the average norm, and same goes for Nigerians. Now, would two average Japanese be more different from one another than either of them is to an average Nigerian? No way. That'd be like saying there's more difference between Woody Allen and Alan Dershowitz than between either of them and Mike Tyson or George Foreman. That's total BS.

--Another argument—and there are many versions of it—amounts to an appeal to emotion, in which a person essentially argues that “race” makes him feel unhappy.--

This is, of course, BS and very selective. 'Race' is supposed to make people uncomfortable IF it is about the validity of white race-hood. It's NOT OKAY to be white. But blacks feel most comfortable when they are going on and on about their blackness and black identity and blackity blackness. So, when black people claim to find 'race' problematic, they really mean not enough (positive)attention is being showered on them. How dare any time be spent discussing other races when it should be about blacks 24/7, sheeeeiiiiiit.
And Jews are the same way. It's Jewish this, Jewish that. And it's not just about culture and history. After all, Jewishness isn't just about religion or historical consciousness. Even atheist Jews are considered as fellow Jews. A Jew can be a Buddhist or even Christian, but he's still a Jew and can live in Israel. Jews seem to have no problem with Zionism's blood-based identity of what constitutes Jewishness. Indeed, Zionism will accept an atheist person of Jewish lineage while rejecting an African, Chinese, or Arab who is eager to convert to Jewishness.

Also, the Holocaust has gone from an Anti-Racist Narrative — "We Jews were victims of German racial supremacism" — to a Neo-Racist Narrative: "Jewish Lives Matter More". After all, the 20th century has seen tons of deaths, and Jews did their share of killing. But it seems 80% of all moral outrage has been devoted to the Shoah. Why? Do Jewish lives matter more? Are Jewish lives more precious? Are Jewish Lives so precious that it doesn't matter when Jews kill millions of goyim, as in the communist horrors of the USSR? Anne Frank matters more than the millions of Ukrainian kids who died in the Great Famine? A Jewish life matters more than the 100,000s killed by AIPAC-driven US Wars for Israel and crippling sanctions? Jewish life is so precious that it's okay for Jews to kill others, but one mustn't harm a hair on a Jew. Madeleine Albright can say it's worth killing 500,000 Arab kids, but damnation to anyone who hurts Jewish feelings.
Thus, Holocaust Narrative has come to mean that Jewish Lives are more precious and matter more. Anything is justified to save Jewish lives, protect Jewish lives, and to favor Jewish lives. It's like the insane logic of BLM. Nothing is spoken about black violence on non-blacks. Blacks commit tons of crimes. Black soldiers in US bases around the world are the top rapists. Black athletes in colleges commit most crime and rape. Blacks are top thugs. But the moral outrage is only about the rare black who dies at the hands of whites. Same dynamics operates in US and UK. Also, this moral burden is placed on white shoulders. So, even though blacks kill blacks by the bushel in Africa, it's no big deal because blacks, being special, can do as they please among themselves. Blacks can be amoral and nihilistic, but that's okay because they are blackity-black wonderful. So, the burden of caring about black well-being falls on whites, even when blacks make other black lives miserable. (If non-whites mess up their own nations, they can't be expected to bear the burden of fixing their own problems. Rather, whites must bear the burden of providing sanctuary for them in white nations.) But then, when white cops do their job and try to minimize crime and violence in black areas, blacks howl about 'racism' and riot(often with encouragement from Jews). It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So, when Jews and blacks say 'race' makes them feel uncomfortable, they really mean all the talk should be about the Jewish race or black race, all favorable. After all, if race is real and if all races matter, then Jews and blacks must share the moral space with other groups. But Jews and blacks want to hog all the space for the Jewish race and black race.

Now, there are whites who feel uncomfortable about 'race', but why? Because their minds have been molded by Jews who control media, academia, and whore politicians/officials who spout PC nonsense 24/7. This discomfort isn't natural but ideological. It's been inculcated in their minds by nonstop anti-white propaganda and education. If Jews and blacks feel angry when the discussion veers into anything other than their own noble/soulful identities, whites have been made to feel disgust about any positive expression of white identity. But then, the very PC whites who can't abide white racial identity have no problem babbling endlessly about how great the black race or Jewish people are. So, the question must be asked, "Why is racial supremacism great for Jews and blacks but mere racial identity is evil for whites?"

--On a deeper level, we should understand that science is fundamentally amoral. It is about the relentless search for the objective truth.--

But let's be honest here. Racial science is never meant to be merely scientific, objective, or amoral. When we study the differences among wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, birds, and etc., we can be detached and neutral(though some people may favor certain animals over others while others may be alarmed about invasive species that may upset existing eco-systems in the interest of preserving bio-diversity). No one in the HBD movement has been merely scientifically interested. They are usually white identitarians who root for their own kind. Even as they acknowledge certain genetic advantages among non-whites, they use those facts to argue for white well-being. Richard Spencer, for example, says it's not good for US to take in high-IQ Indians and Chinese as they might become the over-class over whites. Others admit that blacks are athletically superior, and THAT is the reason against 'inclusion' of blacks in white spaces. Tougher blacks will terrorize and wussify the whites, just like Mongol Wrestlers made a mockery of Japan's sacred fatty sport of Sumo.
So, while science itself is amoral, its uses and purpose is always moral or tribal or political. The physics behind the nuclear bomb is amoral, but the Bomb was used for reasons that biased one group against another. The dynamics of evolution is amoral, but every organism works to maximize its own survival and dominance. Indeed, why do we look into the science of race? After all, science can be used to look into just about anything. But we ignore most things and focus mostly on those that matter most to our survival, well-being, happiness, and power. The science of race is all-important because there are obvious problems in the West, and the most serious ones cannot be understood apart from race. Jewish brain power and black brawn power can only be understood in terms of racial differences. Power decides history, and racial differences profoundly affect power dynamics among various groups.

--This is why the kind of scientists who tend to make really important discoveries—so-called “geniuses”— seem to combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness (altruism and empathy) and moderately low Conscientiousness (impulse control, rule following). This means that they can “think outside the box,” not bound by conventional rules—maybe they even take pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows.--

But then, why is the scientific community so PC and craven? While certain scientists may be like William Shockley or James Watson, most are smart enough to know that they must play the game. Also, even though they think outside the box, they work within the box of specialization. Thus narrowly focused, they outsource their social diplomacy to others. Take Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Maybe deep down inside, they know more than they let on, but as super-geeks, they are savvy enough to hire public relations and parrot the party line. Or take Craig Venter, the guy involved with DNA studies. He surely knows about race but pushed the PC line to keep his position.

Now, there may be people who are so aspergish that they can't help spouting off inconvenient views. Even with public relations department all around them, they can't help muttering things that are bound to offend people(especially in a time when people are conditioned to feel 'offended' or 'triggered' by just about anything, now known as 'micro-aggressions'). But such people are hardly inspirational, and their views are narrowly focused on one thing or another. They don't offer the big vision. This was the case with James Watson. He narrowly focused on black IQ and despaired of the future of Africa. But he failed to construct and deliver a larger message about what black failure means to the West, especially with massive black migration to Europe. He also failed to address the Jewish Question at the heart of PC and anti-whiteness. After all, Jewish Intelligence may be even more fatal to the West because, despite being smart and genuinely capable, Jews use their amassed power and privilege to subvert and destroy the pillars of white power. Blacks degrade society because they are underachievers, but Jews degrade society by over-achieving and using their vast fortunes/power to subvert goy civilizations out of revenge, resentment, paranoia, or just plain nastiness that they revel in. Now, had James Watson gone further in his critique, he would have gotten into more trouble, but it would have been inspirational and earth-shaking. He would have spoken like a prophet. But he talked about race only as a geek, and just like a geek, he cowered under pressure. Aspergy types may say inconvenient stuff but lack the balls to see it through when pushed back. (Bobby Fischer was an exception though, to be sure, he went off the deep end.)

Also, high IQ types don't make good leaders for the people. They live in a world of their own. They don't feel much camaraderie with the dummies and morons who make us most of humanity. When they go on and on about IQ, they favor the meritocracy of the best and brightest regardless of race. They are for the natural aristocracy. Take the lunatic Michio Kaku. He feels nothing for the Japanese. He feels nothing for most Americans. He just thinks the dummy masses should work and consume and pay taxes so that geniuses like him can advance science to the point where humanity can merge with artificial intelligence and become 'gods'. So, even though aspergy types may sometimes go off-script, they offer nothing to inspire the masses or the volk. They are too narrowly focused than broadly aligned with 'my people'.

--In the wake of World War II, “racist” gradually came to mean what “racialist” had once meant.[21] However, the term “racist” has been extended far beyond this, to refer to anybody who is seen to deviate from ideological orthodoxy with regard to the issue of race. Terming such a person the “racist” associates him with that which is accepted as somehow evil and immoral.--

No, following WWII, 'racist' came to mean 'bigot', 'white supremacist', 'hater', or some loon. It was never meant to be synonymous with 'racialist'. The problem with the term 'racist' is it makes a mockery of the meaning of -ism. As -ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. So, how did race + ism come to automatically mean racial hatred, racial supremacism, racial bigotry, and etc? Imagine if 'socialism' automatically means Stalinism or Maoism. It would be toxic. Socialism at its radical extremes can mean Stalinism or Maoism, but the generic meaning of socialism means some degree of statist role for collective interests. Thus, even social-democracy can be deemed socialist. And fascism too.

But precisely because generic race + ism has been defined as racial extremism(especially of white variety), it's difficult for people to honestly discuss matters of race. Genericism on race has been made synonymous with extremism. But same goes for the concept of whiteness. Once a neutral term — quality of European descent — , now it's treated like some evil phantom of history. So, 'whiteness studies' doesn't mean an objective study of white people and culture but an alarmist diagnosis of white people, history, culture, and whatever as the source of all the evils of the world. Whiteness isn't a subject but a disease. It isn't something to really study but to search and destroy or burn at the stake. It's like Jewishness was never a neutral matter in National Socialist Germany. When Nazis studied Jewishness, they weren't detached scholars but doctors studying a pathogen that must be wiped out.

This is why the ONLY WAY to dig out of the hole is to embrace the term 'race-ism'. The dash(-) emphasizes the true meaning of 'ism'. Race-ism can become radical racism but need not be.

But what's most outrageous about all this is the Jews(as pathological semites) are playing a truly dirty game. If Jews, in their naive idealism, were waging war on 'racism' in an earnest effort to stamp out all manifestations of bigotry and hatred, it would at least be understandable. But the real reason why Jews bull-whip and terrorize white identity and interests is because they want to keep white people servile to Jewish supremacism. After all, Jews don't say, "You whites give up your identity and interests, and we Jews will do the same." No, Jews say, "You surrender your banner and carry ours." It's a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." Jews denounce whites as 'nazis' because they want to be Judeo-Nazis over the world. Jewish message to Hungarians is as follows: "Give up your 'racist' Hungarian identity and borders but then be sure to support Israel uber alles." Jewish message to white Americans is as follows: "Feel white guilt over the Holocaust and Slavery and always remind yourselves that you whites totally suck as the mass murderers of history, but then be sure to suit up with military gear to smash and kill any number of Arabs and Muslims for the benefit of Israel." Pathological-Semites or Patho-Semites are truly sick in the head. But they rule the West because Anglos have weaker and more yielding personalities. Jews even joke about the lack of will among Anglos:

Notes on "THE GREATEST JEWISH JOKE EVER TOLD" by Spencer Quinn
https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/the-greatest-jewish-joke-ever-told/

Now, some might say that I'm trying to 'blackpill' people with all the doom-and-gloom talk. But we must speak honestly, just like a doctor must tell a cancer patient about his ailment. Unless the truth is outed, there can't be any real treatment. The current West is like treating cancer with ALL MEANS except those meant to deal with cancer cells. Imagine a cancer patient who is given the most elaborate and expensive treatment for EVERYTHING but the cancer. His eyes, ears, throat, stomach, liver, pancreas, arms, legs, groins, buttocks, and etc are given special treatment with all the tools and medicine. Millions and millions are spent on the treatment... except his cancer is ignored. He will surely die. The black problem is handled that way in the West. Why do blacks fail in school? Lower IQ and rowdy behavior, but no one addresses the problem of natural lower IQ and natural higher aggression among blacks. Instead, money is poured into everything without addressing the crucial fact.
And same goes for Jewish Power. So much of financial, cultural, and foreign policy failures can be traced back to Jewish supremacist abuse of power, but people blame Everyone and Everything but the Jews. Take the recent election. Jews were most responsible for the fiasco that was 2020. With control of medicine, media, deep state, Wall Street, and whore politicians, Jews were hellbent on doing EVERYTHING to topple Trump, but these Trumpists are blaming everything but the Jews. So, nothing will change, nothing will be fixed.

Also, what the West needs is to study the Portnoid Style in Jewish Politics, just like a famous Jewish historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote of the Paranoid Style in American Politics. 'Portnoia' is necessary if we are to spill the beans on what is really happening. There must be no more inhibitions. In a way, Jews gained over Wasps because Jews were vulgar and portnoid in spilling the beans on the Real Wasp, i.e. while Wasps put on a respectable Country Club image, they were really a bunch of a--holes like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Well, it's about time whites did the same to Jews and went totally portnoid on Jewish Power. To be sure, this is harder to do as Jews immunized themselves with shamelessness. It's easier to expose the phoniness of Wasps with their air of respectability and dignity than to expose the Jew who inoculated himself with the pride of vulgarity. One can shame William F. Buckley but not Howard Stern. Still, there is such a huge gap between the tragic and noble image of Jews as a long-suffering people full of wisdom and the obnoxious image of Jews as two-faced a--holes who've turned the Holocaust into License to Steal and Kill for the sake of stuffing their own pockets and securing their own supremacism.

Being portnoid isn't to blackpill but to see truth for what it is. Then and only then can people embark on the right and righteous path. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. I got the following email complaining that my views have a blackpilling effect:

"If your goal is to encourage cucky-wuckery and Jungle Fever then you're doing a great job. Constantly hearing about BAMMAMA, ACOWW, the pussification of the white boy and big black dongs along with your convincing but pessimistic predictions regarding the future of white manhood is extremely de-moralizing. Reading your vivid, primal descriptions of black thugs smashing wussy white boys and humping white girls to mind-blowing orgasms is going to give your white male readers an uncomfortable number of masochistic boners and your white female readers plenty of tingles. The only way then to comfort yourself in your racial-sexual loserdom as a white boy is by whanking to videos of muscular Negro studs pumping beautiful Aryan women into cascades of convulsive ecstasy. You can only repeat this humiliating ritual so many times before you accept the inevitability of white racial defeat and even the desirability of bigger, stronger, more dominant black men conquering the women of your tribe and blotting-out the genes of the degenerate males too credulous, perverted and weak to prevent it. Do you really write for White National Liberation/National Humanism as you claim? Because I can assure you that the effect you are having is very different. Enough nationalists have a white genocide fetish already without any need to encourage it. I had already arrived at these basic conclusions a couple of years ago but your writings certainly added fuel to the fire. I would be interested in reading your thoughts on these subjects."

So, the writer assumes that facing the truth and speaking of the dangers is demoralizing, therefore fatal. But the ONLY way to change course is to speak the truth as things really are. I maintain American History could have been very different IF, in the time of Jack Johnson, white people spoke of the black threat in portnoid ways. But they didn't, so here we are. Truth may not save a people, but it's the only chance they have in a world of lies.

WHY WAS THE 1960S THE PEAK OF HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (AND PRO-SOCIALITY)? by DR EDWARD DUTTON: THE JOLLY HERETIC