Race and Ethnicity

Race, Intelligence and the Limits of Science: Reflections on the Moral Absurdity of “Racial Realism”

Many of my right-wing readers will no doubt consider this piece by leftist anti-racist Tim Wise to be blasphemy, but it’s an interesting summary of the arguments for “race realism” and the counter arguments offered by the Left.

By Tim Wise

Some things are so predictable that you can very nearly set your clock by them. High on the list of predictable happenings in my own life is the regular and repeated receipt of e-mails or Facebook messages whose authors insist that in my passion for the elimination of racial inequities, I am wasting my time, having sadly overlooked certain immutable laws of nature.

In particular, these missives insist upon the iron truth of genetically endowed intelligence, under which black people are simply inferior beings, cursed with substandard IQ, and thus, even the best of efforts to make things more equitable will fail.

Sometimes these messages emanate from sources whose own command of the English language leaves more than a little something to be desired, and whose complement of grammatical and spelling errors suggests that their certitude about white racial superiority is more about projecting feelings of inadequacy onto others than it is about genuine confidence in the claim being made. These are the persons for whom cries of “white power” rise in amplitude exactly so much as is needed to drown out the screams of self-doubt and frustration that would otherwise overwhelm them. In short, most of the people who speak the loudest about white supremacy are, themselves, losers of the first order whose accomplishments are essentially non-existent.


It’s also interesting to contrast the views of Wise with those of black conservative Thomas Sowell.

And with non-racist race realist Steven Pinker.

1 reply »

  1. Meh, Boring. Shit I’ve read before.
    And the intelligence thing, while important, is more interesting for its bell curve than its average distribution. Your typical white prole is an idiot, and being ‘a slightly more efficient and obedient prole’ is hardly some great virtue.
    Where you’ll see the big differences, the ones that matter to me anyway, is in the number of very clever or very stupid people this averages out to. I think it’s clear that, while middle-range blacks are perfectly capable of living in what the Romans called civilization, the prevelence of people who are much dumber than either 100 or the black average is a huge problem. Likewise, having only one decent leader in 100k, as opposed to 1 in 10k, isn’t trivial.
    There’s a lot more than IQ to consider, though, and even with IQ the shape of certain populations’ distribution is hardly well understood. Indians seem to be pretty dumb, but some of them are just as bright as high intelligence whites or Asians, which is unusual given a normal bell distribution (which means their bell either is not normal, or there is some biological variation we’re not accounting for, who knows).

    Beyond that, being an ‘accreddited academic’ who publishes generally means being full of shit and a reflexive egalitarian faggot.

    The idea that it’s not genetic on some level is a denial that it’s physical, which is rubbish.

Leave a Reply