« Rich bourgeoisie vs. not-rich bourgeoisie | Main | Occupy protests and the Bourgeoisie »

February 16, 2012


That argument sounded like: I wish X was true, therefore X will become true.

Why are you so obsessed with race when you refuse to address gender? Even if the elites became race realists they'd still be manginas serving women. Elite women drive PC not elite men.

Siggie, the elites are already race realists. Why do they live far away from blacks and send their children to schools with very few blacks and Hispanics? The real issue here is whether these elites will "come out of the closet" on their feelings about blacks.

Here's a rabbi discussing blacks and AA, and I guarantee you such language is heard in a lot of liberal households, behind closed doors:


Racism being considered déclassé and associated with the working class, in addition to one of the biggest stigmas in western society, tells me this isn't plausible anytime soon.

I do however, respect the high risk and not so conservative (in the mathematical sense of the word) prediction. If he is correct, then he should be lauded for his ingenuity, if not then nothing special.

"We realize how outlandish it seems to predict that educated and influential Americans, who have been so puritanical about racial conversation, will openly revert to racism."

And he does understand that.

From a link on that page:

"During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed."

In other words, the "reformation" didn't reform where it truly counted; it was merely cutting the Pope out of the loop and not being held above the English King. Henry VIII wanted a truly Catholic Church, yet Thomas Cranmer, Hooker, and others revised the liturgy and made some theological reforms. The Oxford Movement of course wanted to bring back Henry VIII's Anglicanism: an exact copy of the Catholic Church apart from acknowledging papal authority.

"In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."

So two consenting adults of the same gender making love in their way is a higher "crime" than owning another conscious human being who must work hard on a plantation for free? There have even been absurd cases where a male and female where out camping, caught having oral, and served jail time for it.

"If you want to object that elite opinions are in line of descent from Marxist egalitarianism, and that racial egalitarianism is of their essence, I will remind you that Marx, in common with wellnigh all thinkers on large social and economic matters until the mid-20th century, was entirely Eurocentric."

But Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School that had Marxist influences are where many of the elites' opinions descend from, and are given more weight than Marx's core text, since the more recent movements that are influenced from Marx are more relevant to our times than Marx's own works. Marx lived during a time when there was very minimal, if any regulation, weren't any laws protecting workers and child labor was legal.

Very interesting and I could see the elite adopting HBD viewpoints.

Anyone can become racist. However, I thought that HBD wasn't about racism but this notion of race realism.

'Siggie: more evidence of Obama's stupidity:'

I'm not sure how the exam shows him to be stupid.

***Imagine you are a member of a group that, in the generality, underachieves socially and economically: a black in the U.S.A., an Inuit in Canada, a Pacific Islander in New Zealand, even a Malay in Malaysia. If the Standard Model is true, the only possible explanation for your group's underachievement is malice on the part of other groups. Hence the rancor, resentment, rage, and division.

If, on the other hand, group underachievement is a consequence of the laws of biology working on human populations, there is no blame to assign. The fact of group inequalities, even in societies that have striven mightily to remove them, is as natural and inevitable as individual inequality, which nobody minds very much.***

This is what Linda Gottfredson has argued. I think there's still enough wiggle room though for people to point to bad environments, epigenetics, culture, inequality, poverty, as contributing factors (see the popularity of the book "The Spirit Level"). They will focus on that and block out/ignore other evidence.

Also, there is great hostility towards those in the media that report honestly on these matters. See the reaction to William Saletan over the James Watson controversy, or some of the comments about Nicholas Wade.


I've got it! Old women will take it up, for the attention. Old ladies can get away with saying anything, because no one takes them seriously.

The elites (old money and new money, I'm not talking about SWPLs) already believe in HBD, HalfSigma; more than you'd think. For example, it's not because of their cost that most domestic servants are Black or Hispanic; it's because rich families like to employ people who won't make a fuss, won't spy on their hosting families, won't protest or demand better wages, and will be too dumb to understand the confidential things the house patriarch is talking about in the lounge.

"Very interesting and I could see the elite adopting HBD viewpoints."

Adopting? They have them already.

"I'm not sure how the exam shows him to be stupid."--Insider

It's poorly written--embarrassingly so.

I just came across this obscure article by Lee Ellis which attempts to explain moral outrage to the Bell Curve. Would be good to read the whole thing. Presumably, the altruistic impules Ellis refers to form part of the barrier to the shift in thinking Derbyshire is suggesting.

"This article contends that genetic factors incline many people to adopt sociopolitical attitudes that are associated with moral outrage when confronted with arguments that human beings inherently differ in their abilities to compete for social status. I propose a theory of social stratification, which asserts that this is a genetically influenced response that has an evolutionary foundation. The theory envisions natural selection favoring the co-evolution of social hierarchies and sociopolitical attitudes, one consequence of which is that persons with strong altruistic tendencies (especially when directed toward nonrelatives) will be drawn into ‘helping occupations’ such as education and will also be prone to adopt left-wing sociopolitical attitudes. Therefore, some of the strongest resistance to arguments presented in publications such as Herrnstein and Murray's (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) The Bell Curve will be found in the academic community itself."

The evolution of attitudes about social stratification: Why many people (including social scientists) are morally outraged by The Bell Curve

Personality and Individual Differences
Volume 24, Issue 2, February 1998, Pages 207–216



Sigma, what do you think Barack Obama's IQ is, again? He has so far failed to impress with the stratospheric cognitive powers you claim he posses.

Enlighten me.

Derbyshire explains in Takimag.com , in what sense his detractor is zero:


Respectfully, F.r.

"Siggie, the elites are already race realists. Why do they live far away from blacks and send their children to schools with very few blacks and Hispanics?"
Ahh, yes, you are right that they sequester themselves from the rabble. They don't want to live next to what they call trash, but I am not sure I agree with the rest of your analysis, for at least some (many?) of them convince themselves that trash can be converted into gold.

The adoption of pc policies that fly in the face of logic is the result of a refusal to face the truth, for there is a need to control, a human need to control at stake. What better opportunity to exhibit control (even if that control gets no positive results) than to adopt the very policies we here attack? The Elites or even fairly ordinary educated "progressives" trick themselves into believing they are capable of great deeds. It's a need to control combined with narcissism.

Women are worse in this area than men, but there are plenty of men who share the trait, who believe their actions have the power to CHANGE PEOPLE. On some level they know this is a power trip, so they choose to believe their actions and to present such actions as magnanimous gestures, proof of their moral superiority to others, proof of their moral courage.

Such behavior takes the place of participation in religious communities of the past, where real help is most effectively given (even if one isn't religious), and where help is most genuinely appreciated.

Men are right when they claim women try to change them. We do. If we wish to have a great relationship with our men, we have to fight hard against our nature and let them (for the most part, anyway) be who they are. I don't know if we are hard-wired this way due to some evolutionary selective pressures, or if we are culturally trained to do so. (Women, not having been economically empowered until recently, found other ways of asserting our human need to control and so yes, we are manipulative and when such manipulation works, it's quite empowering...at first.)

"But Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School that had Marxist influences are where many of the elites' opinions descend from,"

The "Frankfurt School" does not inform elite opinion nearly to the extent paleoconservatives say it did because most elites both during and after the 60's revolution (inluding the 60's radicals themselves) had never heard of the Frankfurt School.

Most of the Frankfurt school's work involved dense and dry literary analyses that not even the hardcore radicals were interested in.

It is true that they portrayed the culture as sick and prone to Fascism, but there many different (and much better known) academics who promoted similar ideas.

Some famous "Cultural Marxist" academics include the atrocious sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, and the homosexual Michel Foucault helped normalize sexual deviancy.

Dr. John Money, a gentile Anglo-Saxon New Zealand psychologist, was one of the first (maybe the first) psychologist to argue that gender is a social construct.

Jean Paul Sartre promoted colonial guilt and third world worship in Europe with his fawning over Franz Fannon.

The Frankfurt School was one the relatively less important cultural Marxist academic outfits.

The only reason it's influence has been grossly exaggerated is because the anti-semites want to pin the entire blame for the sexual and cultural revolutions entirely on these four Jewish professors because they were Jewish, and, thus, entirely whitewash the role gentile liberals have played advancing liberalism.

I could well imagine elites deciding that Blacks and Hispanics need a good dose of moral uplifting, and they are just the people to do it!

For the "best of reasons" taking Black/Hispanic kids out of their single mother's household, putting them in giant boarding schools, drugging them up with ritalin and Adderall, and trying to use technology to make them learn. Clockwork, the Pre-School Edition. All done mind you for the best of reasons and to "help" the target groups.

If nothing else, they will do so in a futile attempt to make Blacks and Hispanics high-earning, high value people to fund the endless things that SWPL want: clean cities, high speed rail, all sorts of Green dreams which cost a lot.

Regarding the old Eastern European revolutionary left's views on race, as opposed to the Western left, the reason Communist Russia adopted an anti-hereditarian platform on race after WWII (at least publicly, if not privately) was because

1) ethnic Slavs were also racially targeted for extermination under Hitler's racial Lebensraum policies (even though, ironically, non-Balkan Eastern Slavs, espcially Russians, have more Scandinavian DNA in them than do Germans*). The Holocaust and the siege of Leningrad were, in a certain sense, a practice run for techniques that Hitler intended to enslave/exterminate the defeated Slavic populations in Poland, Ukraine, and Russia such as mass expulsion, starvation, and working to death in labor camps.

2) It was advantageous for Communist Russia to be seen as the champions of the newly freed Third World because the collapse of the British and French Empires following WWII created a power vacuum Russia wanted to fill with revolutionary Communism.

However, I doubt any of the post-WWII Soviet party members (including post-WWII Stalin) ever *privately* believed Third World populations had the same mental and civilizational potential as the European peoples.

The adoption of blank slatism by Communist Russia was largely opportunistic.

Pre-WWII Communist leaders were quite racist, including Marx, Engels and Vladimir Lenin who himself praised D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

* Nazi racial theorist, Alfred Rosenberg - who fully supported extermination of the Jews - was quoted as saying "there more blondes in Ukraine than Bavaria".

It is possible to be a race realist and still favor redistributional ameliorism, to coin a phrase. Wages subsidies financed by progressive taxation for example.

All else equal there is no reason to suppose that a dollar is worth more to a black man than a white one or vice versa. But there is good reason to suppose that a dollar is worth more to a poor man than a rich one all else being equal. We know this based on our own personal experience.

Of course you personally, especially if you are a libertarian, might not be prepared to admit either one of these proposition. They are certainly not provable. But that is no reason why society as a whole might not elect to adopt both of them as moral axioms, since they are just as certainly not disprovable.

I hope this makes sense.

Boobaka, and also the others that are claiming that elites believe in HBD:

Your example doesn't prove that they believe there is a biological cause of these differences. I think this has been said before here: they might not actually care enough to have an opinion, or they just go along with the 'explanation' that it is culture and socioeconomics causing differences. Even Derbyshire admits the SSSS was 'not preposterous' fifty years ago.


The gender issue is too difficult to speak clearly on. You can probably say interesting things about gender differences in the tails of the distributions of traits, like Larry Summers did. But a lot of people don't seem to care about what is going on at the tails much anyways, and if there are any important behavioral differences in gender near the average they are more subtle and harder to pin down.

Whatever the social classes beneath them believe is the opposite of what Elites will believe or pretend to believe.

After all, what's the purpose of being an Elite if you can't separate yourself both physically and philosophically from others?

I think the elites are already racist. They get away with this because they are racist against whites, and that's the one type of racism which is allowed, or even celebrated.

” The "Frankfurt School" does not inform elite opinion nearly to the extent paleoconservatives say it did because most elites both during and after the 60's revolution (inluding the 60's radicals themselves) had never heard of the Frankfurt School.”

It doesn’t matter that they’ve never heard of it. The baby boomers among them have heard of Herbert Marcuse, who was part of the Frankfort School, they’ve heard of the New Left, they’ve heard of second wave feminism, they’ve heard of victim blaming being and evil moral failing and racism as being the worst moral sin – all of which come out of what the Frankford school started.

"they’ve heard of the New Left, they’ve heard of second wave feminism, they’ve heard of victim blaming being and evil moral failing and racism as being the worst moral sin – all of which come out of what the Frankford school started."

The ENTIRE 60's revolution was caused by just four professors the Frankfurt School??

"It is possible to be a race realist and still favor redistributional ameliorism, to coin a phrase."

JBS Haldhane, who helped invent modern computational genetics, was both an avowed Marxist for most of his adult life and a chairman of the British Eugenics Society. BES was the prestigious eugenics society in the world and included prominent figures such as Lord Keynes.

Another chairman of the Board was Sir Julian Huxley (a relative of Aldous Huxley) and Huxley was a British Fabian Socialist.

In the 1930's, Huxley was arguing for a voluntary sterilization bill in the British parliament, but the bill ultimately failed because anti-Eugenics campaigners in Britain linked the sterilization bill to Hitler's non-voluntary Eugenics programs.

After the war, Huxley did a volte face and signed the UNESCO statement on race, though he stayed committed to Fabian Socialism.

I love how Charles Murray and co vastly oversimplify the complexity of social inequality by trying to pin it on race or iq.

The social model we all currently live under is severely problematic because it does not allow for gradations of ability. There are many tasks lower IQ people could be doing just fine but aren't profitable under a capitalist model.

Murray and the 'race realists' never think there might be something fundamentally wrong with the institution of money as a measure of value. They'd rather not though because they are american and Americans, even their educated and elites are pretty stupid all around.

The comments to this entry are closed.