See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Of course, the good lefties at talk.origins (it’s named for a Usenet newsgroup, which one could think of as a sort of forum or bulletin board dating from the 1980s-1990s Internet) would be horrified by the idea of either politicizing the concept or putting it to any practical, relevant societal purpose beyond using it as a rhetorical bludgeon against those horrible, horrible right-wing hicks.

Ignoring HBD has far worse impacts on civilization than recognizing HBD. What a surprise that the group with the highest IQ (Ashkenazim) in the US just so happens to be also the unofficial ruling class. But of course, they got there all through hard work. If the African Americans worked hard enough, they could be there too. What a mind f*ck.

all the evidence we have tells us forest-dwelling Germans had better cognitive abilities and a generally more advanced way of living than black Africans … The purer neoreactionary position sure is that genetics means something.

That may be so, but the ‘Colonialism’ issue of Radish showed what can be achieved given enough will and determination. Might it be that prolonged exposure to civilisation acts as a eugenic matrix which optimises for those desirable traits in a primitive population which are conducive to civilisation? The problem is that there is no longer any force willing or able to undertake the job. If American blacks are more dysfunctional now than they were in the segregation era (in terms of indicators like educational and economic attainment, family stability and rates of delinquency/crime), then perhaps that’s at least in part because the civil rights movement coincided with a time of revolutionary social upheaval (still ongoing) when the legitimacy of every white Western institution was called into question by white Westerners.  As a result the blacks were denied the opportunity to benefit from exposure to a civilised dominant culture because that culture was in the process of self-immolation. And of course one would expect Western cultural suicide to eventually cause modern urban whites to revert to barbarism as well, a process already well advanced in places.

That fact that the cultural revolution in the West was initially the product of intellectually sophisticated Westerners also suggests that intellectual attainment alone is no barrier to barbarisation. When Radish gives us an amusing juxtaposition of classical European architecture with an African hut, we can all agree and unhesitatingly affirm that classical European architecture is more culturally advanced. Score one for Western Civ. But on reflection I’n not sure I wouldn’t rather live in an African hut than in a product of the deranged imagination of this oh-so-civilised high-IQ white European.

If Dreher thinks that all Aztecs would become moral persons through conversion, and that even African nations are worthy of receiving the path of sanctification, he’s a fool. Go to African Christian missions and tell me what you see. I see General Butt Naked as a pastor sanctifying his flock.

A few years ago a liturgically conservative Catholic blog posted some photos of a modern Tridentine Mass being offered in Africa. One commentator whined:

“… is it really necessary that a Mass in Gabon replicate something from 18th century Rome, even down to the lace collars around the altar boys’ necks? I can understand when it comes to things that are actually part of the rite (chant, language, rubrics, vestments etc.), but why does there have to be such a rigid aesthetic in place that resists any of the organic adaptations Roman Christianity has made to West African culture? This might have worked in the days when every prelate in Africa was a white, but in the 21st century, it reeks of colonialism, even when the celebrant is African himself.”


Which brought forth this reply from another commentator:

“… your ignorant comment has made me furious. How dare you insinuate that ‘rigid aesthetics’ is not part of West African culture, or that it is not fitting to be incorporated in the liturgical life of the Church in Africa. What do you know about Africa for you to make such a statement? Should you not be happy that a few thousand miles away, in a culture that does not resemble anything in the West, we can surely identify ourselves as who we are? We are ‘Roman’ Catholics. What would you rather have us wear? Feathers and loin cloth? Or perhaps that is too base. What about a sheet of cloth with a cut out to fit over our heads? And what would you have religious people like the Franciscans and Dominicans wear to give them a more ‘African’ feel to them? Priests in my country of Nigeria where brought up by well meaning Irish priests. In poor villages that had nothing, people chipped in to provide the priests and other missionaries with whatever they needed to give us our own identity as Catholics. And so, we received our faith from the missionaries with much humility, accepting all that was given to us and rejecting nothing out of pride. The Church in the West brought to us this splendid gift and we took it–even with the Latin and vestments and the new order of things. I grew up with Latin and marvelous westernized vestments and our Cathedral was in Gothic style – do you have a problem with that too? It reminded me not of colonialism, but of the universality of our Church and our link even to the Pope himself. If an African prelate becomes pope, I suppose he should don a shaman attire more closely suited to the identity of his tribe too.
What stinks of colonialism is our civil government. It is what the English used to import its terrible democratic republic rule into our country by force and turned us into a country that would always be in turmoil. Subsidiarity was forced out as a principle and changed the way Africans conducted their lives–not the Church. The Church for us has always been the institution that gave us alleviation from the encroachment of colonialism.”

The Butt Nakeds of this world are what you get when the white man lays down his burden.

Anyone who thinks they do needs to head over to Benefits.gov and begin a fantasy vacation as someone, anyone else. I always check the block on residence as *Incarcerated*.

Really it’s a lot of laughs and all of us should get some, we’re paying enough for it.

For instance…

http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-finder/#results&qc=cat_7

This Haitian immigrant jailed unmarried mother of 4, HIV postive performance artist (oh yes it’s a category) has never worked a day in her life except when she was a victim of 9/11 (she saw it on the prison TV ). Qualifies for 164 programs.

You’ll laugh out loud.

BTW as someone mentioned it apparently there is a subsidy for leading and recognized researchers. I’m not sure where they rank in relation to farm workers or performance artists but the question is there.

Really people mentioning IQ every other comment need to do some homework.

You all keep citing statistics involving height, or weight, or physical body shape, etc. You do all realize that these vastly different things than intelligence???

Intelligence, as it stands, is only ever determined previously by cultural standards.

“You have been lied to. The truth will be painful, but it will be worth it. If you have an open mind and are a critical thinker, it certainly can’t hurt to explore where we are coming from? If we are that shortsighted, you have nothing to fear…”

The “truth,” if it is as you say, is not painful at all. I don’t fear human biodiversity as a fact; if it is a fact, then there’s nothing to be afraid of. Every single individual human being is different, that much is certain; but we’re not only different because of our genes. We’re also different because of our histories, our social conditions, our upbringing, etc…

I fear HBD as an ideology, which is exactly what it is on this board. The fundamentalist masturbation around this idea is striking and is an incredibly interesting phenomenon. Rather than a calm, collected investigation of potential genetic differentiations among human beings, what I see here is ideological grandstanding in the name of something apparently solid and concrete (i.e. “genetics”).

There is no ground of the human; genetics tells a part of a much larger story. The obsession with genetics here is more frightening than any contingency of it as “fact.”