For Those Interested in Heredity, Intelligence and Race

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Mon, 2013-10-21 06:48

This is probably wasted at this site but I'll post anyway. Here are a bunch of links to excellent information on the subjects of race and IQ. If you want to be informed on this subject, you will read this information. They are the big names in the field along with critiques of the pro-IQ side to be balanced.


And here is more. For those interested in what "HBD" has to offer, here is a link to a treasure trove of information on all things related to the effect of heredity on culture. There is more information than you will have time to read. But this is legitimate science and in time Objectivism will have to contend with this stuff.

Biology is crucial to understanding human behavior. The Blank Slate view of *psychology* is wrong. I am NOT talking about the blank slate view of epistemology. That is a different subject. But the idea, Rand's idea, that human emotions are the product of freely chosen human values is being MASSIVELY undercut by science.

I may be a "madman" and a very bad person in the eyes of your typical Randian. But that doesn't change the fact that science is presenting a ton of data that seemingly challenges assumptions which underlie both Classical Liberalism and Objectivism. In the end the liberty project may prevail. But I don't think that is a certainty.

Regardin the UK

Doug Bandler's picture

I was in London in 2001 and even then the joke was "where are all the British people" as there were so many Eastern Europeans and Asians. Its no wonder that London has become the Mecca for Pick Up Artists, most of them specializing in Eastern European women. Some thoughts:

1) European immigration will be less or non problematic. Why? Greater genetic relatedness. The cute Polish girls flooding London are not going to cause civilizational collapse. The Afro-Caribbeans and the Muslims might. (Some would say "will" in time.)

2) I think socialism is wrong no matter what but I would say that an all white country could survive socialism or welfare-statism. If you are stealing someone's money to give it to someone who looks like their cousin that person is less likely to be resentful than if you are stealing their money to give it to someone who looks completely alien, and has an attitude on top of it. Racial homogeneity can cover for a multitude of sins when it comes to politics. Although here I have to say you are right about the "yobs". Jesus what a pathetic bunch. We have our "hillbillies" too but damn, talk about white trash. I think Sowell makes the argument that America's white trash ultimately stems from England's white trash. I know this sounds terrible but all I can think of is forced sterilization for criminals (and maybe even for the lowest IQ contingent - I know not Objectivism sanctioned public policy there).

3) Your point about the more collectivist societies of the 19th century doesn't make the point you think it does. Those societies were more virtuous and of higher culture than our cesspool of a society. No Moley Cirus "twerking" in the Hapsburg Empire or 19th century England (at least not in public). But there were virtuous women in corsets. One could argue that the sexual ethics of Jane Eyre's England were a model that should never have been abandoned. I think that I would opt for 19th century England then the mixed race, semi-socialist, Leftist, nihilistic world of today. I think Rand herself would too. (Although maybe America of the 1930s was the apex of Western culture.) There were some pockets of sexual decadence in old Europe but that would have to get into a discussion of Jewish influence and I'll get into even more trouble if I go down that road.

4) The individualism and egalitarianism of the English and the Northern European people is probably genetic. It is probably the legacy of the hunter gatherer phenomenon of that region. Historian John Hajnal has an entire theory of why the North Europeans are so individualistic and so liberal (Left or Right variety). Google him up. But the entire world does not share the genetics of the North European people. Which gets me to...

5) Liberalism, libertarianism, Objectivism assumes NEUROLOGICAL UNIFORMITY. This may prove to be its fatal flaw. There may be too great a difference in racial "hardware" for a UNIVERSAL ethics or politics to apply. If you bring too many alien races into a society built by whites you may pave the way for the destruction of that society. Non whites will just not "feel" comfortable with the more individualistic politics of whites. Once they have the numerical advantage...

6) The war on whites commences. That is my greatest fear for white people everywhere. That we will become a disempowered minority in our own ancestral lands. God only knows what will be our fate. Can you imagine instead of "hatred of the good for being the good" you will get "hatred of the white for being the white"? Not even Ayn Rand could have conceived of such evil. But that may be our fate and of our grandchildren (metaphorically speaking).

But I realize I am speaking an alien language to Objectivists. But what concerns me is that no one fears this. All Objectivists seem ok with the majority of their nation's population being non-white. Such trust in the ability for all races to embrace the conceptions of individualist universalism that may only be particular to whites.

God have mercy on white people and the kind hearted amongst them. Because the non-white hordes will not.

But Communist East Germany

Tom Burroughes's picture

But Communist East Germany produced a higher standard of living than Communist Zimbabwe.

That does not necessarily prove that black people are somehow less capable than whites in the way your remark might imply. Germany had a longer period of economic development of a recognizably modern sort so that even when the Eastern bit of it fell under the Soviet empire, the country had just enough left in terms of an educated workforce and infrastructure to deliver some kind of system, albeit a pretty crap one. The further east you go, in to the likes of Romania, the closer you get to countries that were very similar to what Zimbabwe now is. Albania was so poor that it was probably as bad as Zimbabwe, and it is white. Other parts of the Balkans were in a sorry state for decades on a par with parts of Africa, and these places are white. (In fact, some of the worst racists seem to come from these sort of countries.)


Neil Parille's picture

What is noteworthy is that, when Britain began its descent into socialism, and when the role of the state reached its height in the years after WW2, Britain was, to all intents an purposes, a white monoculture. Many of the institutions that one would associate with socialism or the paternalistic big state - the National Health Service, the BBC, etc, - were brought in in the 30s and 40s, when a black face on the street was a rarity. That happens to be a fact. It is also a fact that Britain was in some ways far less individualistic then than now.

What all this means is that there simply is no simple correlation that exists between the racial makeup of a society and the dominant ideology/culture of such a society. Nearly all of the pathologies you talk about are matters either of culture or belief (Islamic fundamentalism, Welfarism, post-modernism), not really about race. People constantly conflate race, which is innate, and culture, which isn't.

This is interesting and correct. Consider Jews of European origin. On the one hand you get a Rand or a Mises and on the other a Marx. The culture involved is different but I bet all three would do quite well on IQ tests, consistent with their group.

But Communist East Germany produced a higher standard of living than Communist Zimbabwe.

The UK

Tom Burroughes's picture

Doug, I was not aware you asked me about the UK. So let me answer it: The UK has experienced a number of forms of large-scale immigration in the past, starting from before the time of the Celts, then the Romans, then Anglo-Saxons (what is now northern Germany, etc), then the Vikings (Scandinavia), then the Normans (French/Vikings), then Hugenot French (Protestants fleeing France), then various Jewish groups, then emigres fleeing France (this seems to happen a lot), then certain Chinese groups, some blacks from the Colonies, and then central Europeans and others fleeing Nazi Germany, and so on. Then, in the late 50s, we had waves of immigrants from the former British Empire, such as the Caribbean, parts of East Africa, the Indian sub-continent, and China.

What is noteworthy is that, when Britain began its descent into socialism, and when the role of the state reached its height in the years after WW2, Britain was, to all intents an purposes, a white monoculture. Many of the institutions that one would associate with socialism or the paternalistic big state - the National Health Service, the BBC, etc, - were brought in in the 30s and 40s, when a black face on the street was a rarity. That happens to be a fact. It is also a fact that Britain was in some ways far less individualistic then than now.

What all this means is that there simply is no simple correlation that exists between the racial makeup of a society and the dominant ideology/culture of such a society. Nearly all of the pathologies you talk about are matters either of culture or belief (Islamic fundamentalism, Welfarism, post-modernism), not really about race. People constantly conflate race, which is innate, and culture, which isn't. As Lindsay says on another thread, this is about the content of a person's character, not about the colour of skin, hair or shape of their noses.

If you look at say, Prussia in the 19th century, you had an authortarian society, in which religion and the state were dominant, and an education system was enacted that did much to entrench such a culture. This was also a totally "white" society, and yet from an Objectivist perspective, a very flawed one.

The UK is a small island, and has had to live on its wits as a trading nation since time immemorial; it has had to be open to outside influences. Such an openness is a part of why it is also, in my view, an individualistic country, albeit with significant changes along the way. I don't share your fears about the direction of the UK in terms of things such as birthrates or ethnic composition; what I do worry about is the fact that, largely due to decades of socialism and crappy ideology, we have a large underclass in this country.

We also have a big "yob" problem. You may have read about an issue that hit Britain a few years ago of large-scale violence at soccer matches. This was almost entirely an issue confined to whites (often guys who sported skin-head appearances, were openly racist in their views). This has died out somewhat, but of course it hasn't entirely disappeared.

In the UK we do have examples of what I call "reverse racism", and there are specific issues relating to young Muslim males. I don't know if it is getting better or worse; it is also worth pointing out that there is also a large amount of movement to the UK from people from central and Eastern Europe, such as Poland, and the ethnic composition of the UK cannot simply be reduced to some speculation about "Muslim hordes".

For what it is worth, I do see the case for capping the influx of people to the UK from Muslim countries if only to ensure that the predominance of the UK as a broadly secular nation is maintained and that those who have already arrived here are assimilated as much as possible. But this has nothing to do with skin colour as such.

The Future Of Your Daughters

Doug Bandler's picture

There's no if, it's a when.

Well ok then. Every advocate of a multi-racial nation should know that when this fails in the context of Leftist "D2 nihilism" (as Lenny would say) you are going to get hell on earth. But fill in some of the details on that. In Europe that hell is going to consist of the MASSIVE rape of your white daughters because everyone loves raping white women. White women being the most coveted women on earth.

In Europe, Muslim gangs will rape them in bulk. They are doing this already. In North America your white daughters will be raped by blacks and Hispanics. Go Google up the stats on that. You will have to live in gated communities with the knowledge that outside your gates lies the savage violence of non-whites who hate you. Your daily existence will be living in terror from the hordes of hoodied thugs that will make Trayvon Martin look angelic. If you are not wealthy or connected, and most of you will not be, your future will be miserable.

And then you will learn, you will see that your non-white overlords were nowhere near as utopian or good intentioned as you. 'Atlas Shrugged' will be playing out right in front of you, but only in a racial version that Ayn Rand could never have dreamed of. And then you will flip through your yellowed copies of the "pro-liberty literature" and you will read poetic homages to "the sanctity of the individual" with a tear in your eye as you only then understand that you and hundreds of millions like you were so naive to think that all races were neurologically uniform and that they were capable of the same level of compassion as you (they're not). It will be too late, you will have lost your numerical advantage. Good luck trying to "win over the culture" when you are surrounded by the Orc hordes of "the Colored Empire".

Nature abhors weakness. In the end it punishes it with extinction. I cry for the grandchildren I will never have. And for my unborn granddaughters who will experience the horror of living in daily terror knowing they are the prey of savage wolves and that there is no one who will or can defend them.


gregster's picture

if their multi-racial utopia fails There's no if, it's a when.


Doug Bandler's picture

You didn't answer my question about your native country. Are you familiar with the demographic projections of England and what the potential racial composition of that country will be mid century (or thereabouts)? Could England be England if the native Caucasian population is essentially displaced? The same thing applies for America and Hispanics. Can America continue to have any connection to the Founding Fathers if European descendants become a minority presence?

Objectivists say yes. Race doesn't matter. They want to gamble that other races will pick up the individualist torch which was basically advanced by white people and white people alone. But what if non-whites aren't sold on individualism and racial egalitarianism? The potential nightmare future scenario is horrifying. As I keep saying, it could end up like South Africa but orders of magnitude worse, and in every previously white country.

To me if you are going to take that risk, at least be aware of the risk you are taking and let people know the consequences of failure if their multi-racial utopia fails.

A Few Things to Add...

Michael Moeller's picture

To Tom's fine post.

Doug calls this "science", but he obviously is unfamiliar with science as he appears unable to distinguish between data and conclusions drawn therefrom.

Let me cut right to the chase: there can be no "science" of determinism. This theory, too, would be a genetic pre-determination. That is, the data-gathers would be driven inexorably by their genes to obtain certain data. Likewise, a person would be driven inexorably to accept or reject the theory based on their genes.

Ergo, the whole process of gathering the data and examining the arguments/conclusions would be entirely unnecessary because our genes would have landed us in that spot anyway. This is not science, this is the antithesis of science.

Doug clearly doesn't understand tabula rasa, or consciousness in general. Nobody denies that people are born with innate features -- whether good looks or strong muscles or better brain wiring. Tabula rasa only refers to the idea that there is no content of consciousness until contact with reality. Or as Rand put it, to be aware is to be aware of something. Further, in any state of consciousness there is some content of reality, and this includes thoughts and emotions.

Doug is doing a spinoff of innate ideas and embracing innate emotions. It's just one more indefensible position he needs to buttress the rest of the nonsense.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

At the least, strong evidence indicates that: Whites are different from blacks. Males are different from females. Straights are different from gays. This is true physically, mentally, and psycho-spiritually. It's part of our biology and genetic heritage. As for the issue being discussed in this thread...

Whites and blacks differ in their natural IQs (intelligence quotients) and VQs (virtue quotients). And the inferior nurturing of blacks significantly reinforces their generally inferior intellectual and moral nature, just as the superior nurturing of Orientals and Jews reinforces their generally superior intellectual and moral nature. But...

The situation of blacks in America isn't nearly as hopeless as it may seem. If black mothers had better nutrition and health habits, while their babies were in the womb, this would help solidly. So too if the black kids had a more nutritious and healthy upbringing. Mentally and psycho-spiritually they'd also excel more if they were raised better with superior parents, and with more of an education and work ethic, and with more respect for honesty, loyalty, and non-violence/aggression. Their IQs and VQs would likely improve radically. Achievement would replace criminality, libertarianism would replace socialism/fascism, and tolerance would replace racism/sexism/homophobia. It would also considerably improve the race if the Welfare State didn't encourage low-quality blacks to disproportionately reproduce/breed.

It is my position right now

Tom Burroughes's picture

It is my position right now that human emotions are NOT fully the consequence of freely chosen values but are in fact partially heredity in origin.

The key word in that sentence is "partially". No objectivist I know of, including Rand, has ever denied that we are not to some extent creatures of our environment, which includes inheritance and so on. But this is not a binary issue, an either/or. The point is that, regardless of variations in genetic makeup and IQ or whatever, the human capacity for volition, to think, is there.

What I have a real problem with is when whole swathes of humanity are, on the basis of some survey or supposition about certain characteristics, deemed to be unable to operate as free beings. That is so totally unwarranted. (I think Michael Moeller has argued this point very effectively to you and Neil P. on the other thread, by the way.)

In fact, none of this is all that new. Determinism comes in varied shapes and forms (behaviorism, Freud, Marxism, religious ideas such as predestination, etc). All of them try to deny space for volition and Man as a choice-maker. All of them have eventually fallen into disrepute. I can predict with some confidence that the current vogue for thinking that our capacities are all hard-wired will suffer the same fate. The human capacity for free will just won't go away.

re Rand

Doug Bandler's picture

"Ayn Rand was a believer in the blank slate"

She was. She believed in a type of emotional and psychological blank-slate-ism. No she didn't believe in epistemological blank-slatism; no preformed conceptional ideas. OK, good. But she weighed in on psychology without a sufficient understanding of human physiology and brain chemistry (not to mention evolutionary theory).

It is my position right now that human emotions are NOT fully the consequence of freely chosen values but are in fact partially heredity in origin. I leave open the very real possibility that much of a human's emotional makeup results from early imprinting. So it could be that in practice, early environment plus genetics is "destiny", or at least extremely influential. [This is another reason why immigration is so dangerous. You allow people from violent cultures to come to your country when in reality so much of their psychic lives have been shaped and are NOT re-shapable. Social engineering is a pipe dream.]

Regarding heredity and race, what I know is that there are legitimate, provable difference in psychometric (and other) attributes at the population level. What this means is that no matter that an individual of any race could be brilliant or moral, etc, when it comes to statistics what you find is that the proportion of low intelligence or high crime or high impulsivity or higher promiscuity, etc is not random. It correlates very strongly with race and gender. The numbers are easily predictable. At the population level, I hate to say it, heredity is for the most part destiny. The wealth of nations and IQ correlate extremely well as do crime stats.

What all of this means for politics is a difficult question. Objectivism would argue nothing. I thought that way too at one point but now I am not so sure. I think that biology and historical experience (i.e. the coming civilizational collapse and the possibility of a race war against white people - of which there have been many in European history - i.e. Asiatic and Islamic invasions which were really race wars at root) may show that multi-cultural societies are impossible. Liberalism (libertarianism) may not be realistic given the realities of human nature and the bio-cultural imperatives deeply rooted at the racial level.

I don't hold to this as dogma, but I don't rule it out as all O'ists do. And Tom you are from England for godsakes. Do you know the demographic projections for your country? You should be terrified. Do you really think that if England ends up with over 50% of its population comprised of Muslims and Afro-Caribbeans that it will still be the country of Shakespeare, Chaucer and Milton? Tom, do you really think you can have a Britain without the native British?

Doug, here is a website worth

Tom Burroughes's picture

Doug, here is a website worth your time:

Anyway, if I had been given a dollar every time I heard the old line that "Ayn Rand was a believer in the blank slate", and hear her damned accordingly by some of her critics, such as the awful Greg Nyquist etc, I would have enough money now to fund Part 3 of Atlas Shrugged.

Whether the studies you link to make valid points or not, it seems to me that none of this stuff about race, IQ (which is not necessarily the only way to measure intelligence) really overturns the essential Randian point that humans have volition in more or less the same degree, although one might draw a line where severely handicapped and infirm people are involved. (Which is one of the reasons why such people need to be protected in some way in a society.) With a normal individual, regardless of the absolute IQ score they might have, they all have the ability to choose between alternatives (and fuck the determinists on this, who confuse event causation with agency causation); volition, human agency - whatever term you like - is not contingent on one's test scores. It is entirely besides the point.

I would go so far as to say that those groups in society that grow up with a strong sense of ethic, who are taught that hard work, character, discipline and focus matter, that you need to be flexible and adapt, are more likely to do well even than those groups that are blessed with supposedly higher IQs but might, for whatever reason, have been infected with a fatalistic outlook. (We have all met the genius who is also a bum and the less intelligent person who slogs hard at his studies and does well, etc).

What bothers me with some "race realists" (and most of them are frankly racists in plain language) is that they seem to be implying that only those with a certain level of brainpower are fit for freedom. I call BS on this.

Rand said that her ideas applied to anyone, either of modest ability or immense ability, so long as they had the basic understanding that to flourish means you have to choose to think, to use what you have got on this Earth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.