by Gaius Marcius
Science is a tricky and embarrassing subject in a multicultural society. As many progressives today will tell you, the objective facts and verifiable results of physical science are conclusive proof of its White supremacist origins. Now, SJW’s do not really want to live in a shithole country any more than sane people do, so they cannot simply force scientists and engineers to stop acting so White and competent. Affirmative action in science is subtle, and nothing less than endless policing keeps the scientific consensus within acceptable ideological boundaries. Swift punishment for any dissenter, no matter how famous (see James Watson), keeps many lowly researchers from speaking on controversial topics like race and IQ.
Many scientists probably choose to remain silent despite knowing the facts about race differences. But silence is not enough to keep people from noticing the difference between Orange City, Iowa and East Cleveland, Ohio. Egalitarian ideology also requires some loudmouth to authoritatively spout nonsense that contradicts the mounting evidence of race differences. Richard Dawkins has a reputation as a politically incorrect contrarian, but despite his long study of evolutionary biology, Dawkins is a purveyor of safe and uncontroversial opinions when it really counts. No matter how solid a factual basis he begins with, when Dawkins’s commentary inevitably drifts from the easy sphere of mere empiricism into the difficult and important realms of philosophy and politics it bears the characteristic attributes of the social conformist masquerading as an iconoclast. Dawkins wants the social cachet that comes with speaking truth to power, but his interpretation of scientific observations signals his fundamental agreement with polite society on matters that might earn him the James Watson treatment.
Consider the implications of the following two passages from Dawkins, one lamenting the lack of appreciation for Darwinism and the other speculating on the variability of human intelligence.
“Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun, but the full implications of Darwin’s revolution have yet to be widely realized. Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance. Philosophy and the subjects known as ‘humanities’ are still taught almost as if Darwin had never lived.” The Selfish Gene, Ch I
So far, so good. Many race realists and HBD enthusiasts have the same complaint. I do not believe that Dawkins actually understands even the rudiments of Christian civilization or the relative merits of biology and theology, but he at least sounds like a hard-nosed pragmatist in this passage. Dawkins’s next chain of reasoning begins in a way that would make the intellectual gatekeepers of egalitarianism squirm in discomfort.
“(1) There was a time when our ancestors were less brainy than we are. (2) Therefore there has been an increase in braininess in our ancestral lineage. (3) That increase came about through evolution, probably propelled by natural selection. (4) Whether propelled by selection or not, at least part of the evolutionary change in phenotype reflected an underlying genetic change: allele replacement took place and consequently mean mental ability increased over generations. (5) By definition therefore, at least in the past, there must have been significant genetic variation in braininess within the human population. Some people were genetically clever in comparison with their contemporaries, others were genetically relatively stupid. The last sentence may engender a frisson of ideological disquiet, yet none of my five propositions could be seriously doubted, nor could their logical sequence… The conclusion of the previous paragraph is inevitable, provided only that we are evolutionists who agree to the proposition that once upon a time our ancestors were less clever (by whatever criterion) than we are.” The Extended Phenotype, Ch II
Everyone who reads Dawkins’s paragraph correctly anticipates that it tends toward “White supremacy.” A computer program given only these premises would know that one group might turn out smarter than another, but the computer would not know which group would come out on top. For a human, merely hearing these premises awakens the instinctive racism of lived experience. No one, not even the most ardent progressive, would ever make the mistake of thinking that an IQ gap would be favorable to Blacks. Dawkins, having voiced his contrarian premises, must find a way to square this circle while maintaining egalitarian dogma.
“Yet in spite of all that, it still does not follow that there is any genetic variation in mental abilities left in the human population today: the genetic variance might all have been used up by selection. On the other hand it might not, and my thought experiment shows at least the inadvisability of dogmatic and hysterical opposition to the very possibility of genetic variation in human mental abilities. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that even if there is such genetic variation in modern human populations, to base any policy on it would be illogical and wicked.” The Extended Phenotype, Ch II
Yes, Dawkins, it certainly would be a shame to allow a chain of logical reasoning to reach the end of a paragraph unmolested. The logical thing to do if genetic variation in human mental abilities exists, especially in Dawkins’s own materialist philosophy, is to be ruthlessly pragmatic about enforcing genetically based social policy. Since this is Black History Month, I would like to call particular attention to Dawkins’s appropriation of African reasoning. Calling logic illogical and wicked because it disadvantages Africans is surely the hallmark of non-White reasoning. Dawkins wants to eat his cake and have it, too. He might as well say, ‘Please enshrine evolutionary biology as the basis of education and society, but under no circumstances draw politically inconvenient conclusions based on our knowledge of genetics and natural selection. If you entertain such notions even in a purely theoretical way, you must adhere to this non-scientific moral code I just made up that prevents you from using your scientific knowledge.’
You will see a lot of serious, even reverent, paeans to laughably fake Black History for the rest of this month, but none quite as pathetic as rational Richard’s attempt to paper over obvious human biodiversity. Dawkins can afford to offend all the Christians in the world and he can even tiptoe around criticisms of Islam, but he cannot offend the idol of egalitarianism.