Your comments about Bush and his rhetoric regarding America and the race issue have been spot on. Bush sounds like Clinton, for Clinton was also adept at using Christian ideas and rhetoric. (Remember the National Prayer Breakfast?)

I also was shocked by Cal Thomas’s column. He’s been one of my favorite pundits for years. There’s something about the race issue that makes strong men quiver and weak men faint. It made Herrnstein and Murray fudge the conclusions of their otherwise magnificent book on race and IQ. It makes that courageous couple the Thernstroms preach the possibility of closing the educational-achievement gap.

Try a thought experiment: imagine a candidate for high office (whether incumbent or not) admitting, even obliquely, what all the data prove: that the innate IQ of blacks is, on average, 15-18 points lower than whites’. Just to imagine that scene wafts you into the realm of science fiction. It will never happen. Yet a politician can’t avoid the issue altogether; that would be noticed. What’s the answer? I don’t know.

I hadn’t thought of the intelligence side of the issue before, but Frieda is of course right. The reason the president had to tell the people of Africa that blacks in America still haven’t attained “justice” (i.e., group equality of results) is that he won’t acknowledge the IQ gap. That hidden, denied, truth of race differences remains the driving force of racial politics.

Mr. Auster writes:
“That hidden, denied, truth of race differences remains the driving force of racial politics.”

Indeed. Generalized: the hidden, denied truth of actual substantive differences that matter, and that because they matter are reasonable grounds for authoritative discrimination, remains the driving force of all of modern politics.

I saw Thomas do the same thing once when he was hosting a show on the former NET network. His guests were Jullianne Malveux and David Horowitz. Malveux calls herself a “Christian.” So Thomas let her get away with anything. She heaped abuse on Horowitz and mouthed all the leftist platitudes. Cal Thomas just sat there with a benign expression. Malveux was religous, so Thomas didn’t challenge her. I never had much repect for Cal Thomas after that.

“That hidden, denied, truth of race differences remains the driving force of racial politics.”

It occurs to me that those three words “hidden, denied, truth” cover all aspects of the situation:

1. The truth of race differences is the cause of the racial inequality of results.

2. The fact that people don’t see this truth, i.e., that it is hidden from them, means that they can only explain the inequality of results as the result of some injustice done by whites to blacks.

3. But since this truth is apparent to anyone who looks and will not remain hidden by itself, it must be actively denied.

Thus the truth itself explains the actual racial differences. The failure to see the truth explains the white guilt. And the active covering up of the truth keeps the system operating.

Mr. Auster’s chain of reasoning leads straight to this corollary: that since the truth won’t ever be acknowledged, affirmative action will be with us in perpetuity.

The logic is inescapable. If we somehow end affirmative action (in all its guises, including “diversity”) without societywide and government acknowledgment of the innate difference in IQ, we’ll be self-accused of the guilt of withholding remedial measures that might close the achievement gap.

The only way to avoid the charge of injustice to oppressed people is to have societywide acknowledgment that they aren’t oppressed, and that the free choices of free people have allocated jobs, degrees, and incomes according to merit.

So, why won’t we ever acknowledge the truth? Everyone go out right now and ask the first five white people you meet, get their reaction, and come back and report. On second thought, that won’t be necessary. We all know what the reactions will be, and I’m not limiting my generalization to the blue states. Even in the red states, the untruth of this matter is a far more sacred dogma than any other in American history. Perhaps the first step toward regaining our honesty is to discover why we’re so afraid.

I’m not convinced that IQ differences are inherent in race. This is not because I am hopelessly brainwashed that there is no such thing as race, but more because I don’t believe there’s such a thing as a pure race. During WWI the Germans were depicted as “Huns,” and much was made of the Asiatic connections of some of their ancestors. A few short years later it was commonly accepted fact (for some) that the Germans were the “purest” nordic race. These fads of eugenic belief have come and gone ever since the concept of race developed, and I think it’s as specious now as when it began.
Africa was never a closed gene pool. There have been countless other peoples assimilated into Africa over the millenia, yet if IQ is inherited why hasn’t the superior IQ averages of some (for example Ethiopian Jews) been inherited? I think the cultural argument is still strong. The one cultural trait of Africa that seems to be universal (and is something fairly American too) is a mulish stubborness not to fit expectation. When education was denied to slaves or their descendents it was coveted; now when it is served up in heaping platters it is “too white” and “selling out.” I’m sure slaves who hid their books would be shocked at this cultural shift, but it’s rather like the shift in attitude toward alcohol during prohibition. The feminist movement brought about prohibition by successfully labasting demon liquor, but once it was illegal suddenly it became twice as popular as before.
I think its far to early to know whether “The Bell Curve” will hold up over time. While a cultural shift seems unlikely that is exactly what most on this list have been prescribing.
No need, though, it’s being tried every day. What is affirmative action except the assumption that black folks (among others) are inherently incapable of competing and therefore need a leg up? Recognizing inferiority tacitly instead of openly isn’t very different in my view. “Accepting” the inferior IQ scores of some races won’t erase affirmative action it will only immortalize it. Since compassion is (and has usually been) a prized commodity among mortals, it’s not likely to just vanish magically. Somebody will always want to help the less fortunate, if for not other reason that to underline their own superiority.
I believe the biggest problem is cultural, not only among black folks but among everybody else. Egalitarian ideas will always come up with this crap. People are not equal, and until every individual learns to play to individual strength, and society local and national decides to quit trying to cram unique individuals into cookie-cutter shapes it will never change.
For folks of African descent to “accept” that their average IQ is lower than the English or the Chinese isn’t going to do a bit of good to anyone. Meritocracy is inherently individualistic. Each individual strives to be the best according to indvidual ability. Accepting a racial inherent inferiority beyond individual control won’t help any individual. You want to know why “The Bell Curve” isn’t gospel in America? It’s un-American. Despite the leftist preaching of decades, Americans still mostly believe that their destiny is in their own hands and that “nobody tells me what to do.” That belief is precious, and it won’t be overturned easily. If the left after 100 years hasn’t managed to change that ideal then a few studies showing racially stratified IQ test scores isn’t going to turn the trick.

Mr. Wilson wrote:

“‘Accepting’ the inferior IQ scores of some races won’t erase affirmative action it will only immortalize it. Since compassion is (and has usually been) a prized commodity among mortals, it’s not likely to just vanish magically. Somebody will always want to help the less fortunate, if for not other reason that to underline their own superiority.”

If we were in an all-white society, would Mr. Wilson be talking about this supposed irresistible human compassion that must ineluctibly lead to an unassuageable demand for an enforced Marxist equality of results among whites of different abilities? Of course not. So why does he insist that such a demand must carry the day in a society with a black minority? I think Mr. Wilson, despite the nuances he throws into his argument, is still under the same mesmerism of race (i.e., the reluctance or inability to face the reality of inherent black inequality) that is paralyzing our whole society.

Frieda writes:

“Mr. Auster’s chain of reasoning leads straight to this corollary: that since the truth won’t ever be acknowledged, affirmative action will be with us in perpetuity.”

I hope Frieda’s premise is not true. But one datum suggesting it is true is that the primary (should I say primordial?) political belief of modern people is equality, particularly when it comes to the area where the actual inequality is most stark and embarrassing, racial inequality. Therefore they will never accept inherent group differences of ability, no matter how clear the evidence. And, for the same reason, they will never give up the belief in equality itself (if they would give up that belief, then they’d be willing to accept the fact of race differences.)

This leads to a conclusion I’ve stated before: that liberalism is the essence of our society, and that liberalism will only come to an end when it has destroyed the society that gave birth to it.

To Captain Ahab the White Whale symbolized all evil, all that maddens and torments, all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain, and in his mad bigotry he chased the White Whale around the world until it turned on Ahab’s ship and sank it, killing all hands aboard, a vision of the total destruction of civilization. To our liberal civilization, inequality symbolizes all evil, the source of everything that’s wrong with life, so in a state of insane bigotry our civilization will keep chasing the White Whale of Inequality, seeking to kill it, until it turns on our civilization and destroys it.

Perhaps I should have said that our civilization is chasing, not the White Whale, but the White Man.

Yeah but it isn’t just the White Wales it is all the White Anglos.

It looks like Matt and I had the same thought at the same moment. Look at the time of our last two postings.

However, it’s not really the White Man or White Anglo that Liberal Civilization is hunting, at least not exclusively. Yes, the White Man is the source of inequality and oppression, of everything that’s wrong with life, so he must be destroyed. But it’s also the specter of the racial inequality itself, pertaining to certain nonwhite groups, that Liberal Civilization must destroy or deny. And as a result of the attempt to destroy or deny it, it will strike back and destroy civilization.

I wonder who will be the next target of liberalism’s wrath once they’ve successfully dispatched the whites, Japan or Korea? India? Even when the whites are but a distant memory, the inequality will still be there.

“So, why won’t we ever acknowledge the truth of the innate difference in IQ?”

To do so admits only to the present state of things. As Jim Wilson points out, there are possible explanations (mulish stubborness not to fit expectations today, slavery and Jim Crow previously) for a 15-18 points difference in intelligence. (I’ll accept your statistics for the sake of the discussion).

A claim that this will be the case in perpitude suggests wishful thinking on the part of the claimant and raises questions as to their motive.

If, however, over time the claim were born out, it would still only prove a difference in intelligence. Such information would provide a useful defense against the equal of outcome marxists, yes, but of course speaks little of a man’s Godly worth.

1) That races are mixed does not disprove generalizations based on statistical patterns. That black IQs are 15-18 points lower than white IQs does not mean that every white is smarter than every black.

2) Innate racial differences, caused by regional selective breeding over a long period of time, are consistent with the equal value of every human soul before God. I don’t know why Mr. Wilson thinks that someone who believes in such IQ differences would assume that God loves smarter people more than He loves the less-smart.

3) Racial differences are manifested in other ways besides IQ. For example, certain differences in musculature account for the high percentage of Kenyans among marathon winners. Tests prove these differences, which aren’t visible to the naked eye. This is not a cultural trait.

4) Acceptance of the many statistical proofs of racial disparities in IQ is consistent with acceptance of the large role that culture and environment play in practical intelligence. No one denies that nurture and nature both contribute to IQ—which means that better schooling and higher standards would raise black children’s IQs and academic achievement levels. The question is whether such improvements could close the gap with white and Asian children. Objective studies in many countries by many scholars with different beliefs all say No.

5) If a proponent of the no-innate-difference thesis has ever published an explanation of the twins studies results, I have missed it. In case Mr. Wilson isn’t familiar with those studies, here’s a brief summary: when identical twins have been raised in different families, they’re closer to each other in IQ than either is to his foster family.

Moreover, a black raised from infancy in a white family generally has a lower IQ than his white foster siblings, and a white raised from infancy in a black family generally has a higher IQ than his black foster siblings.

6) Mr. Wilson mixes ethical and political issues with the issue of the innateness of IQ patterns. This is illogical, for facts are not transformed into nonfacts by our wish that they not be true.

In response to Mr. Auster’s contention that my point about Aunt-Nellyism would not exist in an all-white society, I must assert that monochrome societies have discovered many of the same ills that exist now between colors. Once upon a time the Irish were considered another race by the British, and there was plenty of “science” to back up the claim that they were racially unintelligent, given to drink, and unable to cease fighting amongst themselves. While this is not necessarily an irrational prejudice about a place where a cobbler is considered a supernatural creature, it is today accepted by nobody that Irishness includes racial traits making the Irish unable to sustain a modern society amongst themselves. This is no isolated example, either. It has been repeated many times,though in earlier times it was Aritotlean logic or theological dogma used as proof rather than science. As a skeptic about scientists I’m not inclined to accept their word uncritically, and until there is a use for their theories I reserve my right to disbelieve. If there’s no technology derived from a theory then it’s not much of a theory and I’m not impressed nor inclined to feel that I MUST believe it.
The compassion I’m describing is not real compassion, but is the so-called altruism of the superior for the inferior. By deciding that people with a certain proportion of black African blood will be 15-18 IQ points lower no matter what, it would only make “affirmative action” permanent. They would need help forever. Accepting it as a fact (which again, I am not convinced it is) would have no useful benefit of any kind. It would not make a meritocratic society, since one has never existed in history and is unlikely to suddenly pop into existence any time soon. That would be a wonderful thing, but people are still people and will always prefer their own, whether they define “their own” by race or family or religion or even politics. I would have a hard time hiring somebody who is ardently pro-abortion. How can such a person be trusted? I would have a hard time hiring a Satanist or a Gnostic or a Nizari for the same reason, even if they were more qualified for the job. That would be illegal discrimination under our current system, which I disapprove. I should be able to hire only Eagle Scouts if I want. If I were prejudiced against left-handed brown-eyed women I ought to be able to NOT hire them if I like.
I would also like to add that IQ is no indicator of being useful to society at large. Far too many people of very high IQ have been easily subverted by the ridiculously implausible tenets of socialism for them to hold much value for the world. As Dennis Prager likes to say, “some things are so stupid only a PhD could believe them.”
Focussing on IQ as a predictor of ability is plain wrong. Most of the useful things done in civilization are done by people of middling IQ. There’s no reason that Africans with 15-18 points lower on average couldn’t hold together a modern civilization if once it were built. No reason except socialism, which fits all too well with the tribal & clannic culture of almost all of Africa. It’s too late for Africans to reinvent the wheel—modern civilization already exists and there’s no point in trying to go from windmill to steam engine to internal combustion all over again. Once cultural norms change to select for intelligence then perhaps there will be brilliant discoveries from Africa as well as the rest of the world.
We would do well to remember that it wasn’t long ago that intellect was not held in much regard in Europe. Socialism is merely feudalism of the intellectual, but before that there was feudalism of the warrior for centuries. Intellect was relegated to monasteries and a few universities, and not until the renaissance was intelligence viewed with reverence. Since intellectuals have proved themselves butchers on a scale unimagined by medieval knights, the value for intelligence has suffered somewhat in recent years not unreasonably. Reason isn’t wisdom, however, and this trend is not unchangeable.
I’m not fond of eugenics as a rule, but if one looks at the relative IQs of the different races there is one that has been overlooked (at least in this discussion). Ashkenazi Jews have been selecting for intelligence for a very long time. They have the highest average intelligence yet measured. The Chinese, at least, have been selecting for intelligence for a long time too—the one guaranteed ticket out of the lower class was to pass the bureaucracy exams and become a civil servant. Europeans have a lower average IQ and have been selecting for intellect for less than five centuries. Africa has the lowest average, but has yet to begin selecting for intelligence. It is something not highly prized by African women (though it is becoming so for African-American women) and after all it is the choices of women that determines the fate of civilizations. America may see changes in fashioable female desires every six or eight years, but most places go much slower.
Before deciding that race is the permanent determinant of IQ and damning anyone who dares deny it, perhaps it would be best to wait and see what happens with all the well-educated black women in America today who can’t find a man because they are a) in jail, b) undereducated, or c) educated and responsible but too scarce.
When selecting for intelligence becomes necessary for survival then perhaps there may be some major changes in what some seem to consider facts set in stone. I certainly don’t know that it will be so, but I’m not going to close my mind to the possibility. Facts are stubborn things, but scientists are generally not to be trusted, so choose your facts with the utmost care.

Regards,
Jim Wilson

I’ll reply to Mr. Wilson when I get a chance, but it would be helpful if he would keep his posts shorter. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a collection of full length op-ed articles (his latest post is 1000 words, and moreover, without breaks between paragraphs), and posts of that length will tend to inhibit readers from following the discussion.

I would be reluctant to pay attention to someone that called me a sucker and demeaned my Christianity. But of course inaction is at least as dysfunctional.

I guess Mr. Murgos is referring to my last paragraph to Cal Thomas. I admit it was on the nasty side. But is not a certain measure of rudeness justified when “conservatives” give an enthusistic endorsement to a speech that in the the manner of the left casts the United States as a permanently guilty country? Look at the speech again. After cataloging in the most brutal terms the slave trade and slavery, Bush said:

“My nation’s journey toward justice has not been easy and it is not over. The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destination is set: liberty and justice for all.”

Bush is saying that the bigotry that characterized the most cruel treatment of blacks hundreds of years ago IS STILL WITH US AND IS STILL KEEPING BLACKS DOWN. But, since we already know that what he means by “being kept down” is not an actual violation of justice or of rights, but the failure to achieve racial parity in every area of life, what he’s really saying is that blacks’ failure to achieve the same as whites is the consequence of a still operative, slavery-like bigotry by whites against blacks.

The President of the United States went to Africa and gave this vicious, leftist-style indictment of white America—and the Christian Conservative Cal Thomas just loves it!

These mainstream conservatives and Christian conservatives are ASLEEP, and they need to be shaken up. So a little toughness is not out of place when dealing with them.

Furthermore, anyone who is disturbed by what Bush was saying and by Thomas’s blanket endorsement of it could communicate his displeasure to Mr. Thomas by going to one of his articles at TownHall.com and sending him an e-mail.

I agree, Mr. Auster. For Bush to give a leftist indictment of America on foreign soil while remaining utterly silent on slavery being practiced (against fellow Christians, no less) this very minute is beyond unconscionable. Looking at this speech again, I can only assume that Bush is opening the door for taxpayer-funded reparations by his use of the phrase: “The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times.”

This is the crux of the argument made by reparation advocates like Sharpton and Jackson - that the legacy of slavery and white racism is the only thing preventing full equality of outcomes. The reparations shakedown is already targeting large corporations - who fear the coming rush of class-action suits. They in turn wish to deflect the cost of potential court judgements onto the government. Thus the ruling elite (like Bush) will push through a taxpayer-funded entitlement (unending, of course). This is exactly what the reparations crowd is counting on.

In a way, the cheerleading from folks like Cal Thomas isn’t completely surprising in light of the way in which he and other Evangelicals like James Dobson have elevated the Marxist fellow-traveler, libertine serial adulterer and apostate Martin Luther King to sainthood. VFR poster Marcus Epstein has written a devastating expose of King which is posted at LewRockwell.com. for any who might be under the illusion that MLK was some sort of American Ghandi.

Thanks to Carl for the further analysis. I have sent it to Cal Thomas, with whom I’ve been trading e-mails, with the further comment:

“Dear Mr. Thomas,

“This comment from a poster at my website View from the Right gives further reasons why Bush’s speech is so terribly damaging and helps advance the cause of the left, specifically the demand for reparations.

“Does any of this make you start to re-think Bush’s speech and your endorsement of same?”

Going back to the first point about this ghastly speech in Senegal (the leftist denial of Western moral legitimacy), did it ever occur to Mr. Bush (or to Cal Thomas) that the only successful anti-slavery movement in world history sprang from Western civilization, an that the moral leadership and inspiration for this movement came from Christianity? David Horowitz made a very good point in the reparations debate a couple of years ago when he stated that slavery was largely ended worldwide through the actions of American bluecoats, British gunboats and French bureaucrats. There were no abolitionist movements to be found in the areas where the “religion of peace” held sway.

I don’t get it. The speech as leftist? Certainly abolitionist-sounding, something someone with roots in New England could be expected to deliver, a la John Greenleaf Whittier or William Lloyd Garrison.

The abolitionists won, we’re all them now. That’s just a fact.

Prez Bush is just echoing that reality in an arena that enjoyed listening to it.

What got me upset is this: “With the power and resources given to us, the United States seeks to bring peace where there is conflict, hope where there is suffering, and liberty where there is tyranny. And these commitments bring me and other distinguished leaders of my government across the Atlantic to Africa. “

This is reminiscent of Kennedy’s Inaugural about bearing any burden, paying any price, that led us into the quagmire of Vietnam.

What he’s given us is the recipe of seeking out monsters across the globe that John Quincy Adams warned us of.

“I don’t get it. The speech as leftist?”

Please read my comment of July 12 11:50 a.m., where I quote more of the speech, with Bush saying that the bigotry and injustice related to slavery still continues today, and my interpretation of that. He is basically justifying slavery reparations. He has adopted the leftist view of white oppression in America.

Mr. Anderson’s abolitionist argument simply doesn’t fly. If Bush were making an abolitionist speech, why was there no mention whatsoever of the slavery and murder being carried out on a daily basis by his “religion of peace” friends in Khartoum and elsewhere in Africa?

Here’s the last part of my correspondence with Cal Thomas:

LA to CT:

Dear Mr. Thomas,

This comment from a poster at my website [Carl’s comment of July 12, 2003 01:15 PM] gives further reasons why Bush’s speech is so terribly damaging and helps advance the cause of the left, specifically the demand for reparations.

Mr. Thomas, does any of this make you start to re-think Bush’s speech and your endorsement of same?

CT to LA:

No it doesn’t, Lawrence. I stand behind what I wrote.

Cal Thomas