New Race Realist Book Out

And it is apparently written by a science journalist too.

The view of it is by the horrific Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve was an excellent book although it was coming from a far right point of view. Murray’s view is that since some races are less intelligent and capable than other races, let’s cut them off of all the social programs!

What the heck? If that is true, and in fact it is true that at the moment some races are on average less intelligent and capable of intellectual tasks than other races, it actually increases the case for welfare instead of decreasing it! Can’t you reactionaries see that?

If all the races are equal, then that decreases the case for social programs because it implies that people are poor and it’s all their fault that they are impoverished. But if they are permanently less intelligent and they had nothing to do with this fact, then it’s not their fault that they ended up poor? See?

Not only that, but we have a much better case for an extremely unequal society if all the races are equal. It they are all equal, then the high achievers deserve every nickel that they earned since they deserve at as they only got it via hard work and whatnot. On the other hand, equality implies that those who are losing in the money race are doing so due to the their own poor choices: it’s their own damn fault!

Inequality between the races means that the monetary achievements and wealth of high achieving races are completely undeserved as they only got it by lucking out in the genetic lottery. So we should redistribute their undeserved gains to the lower achieving races who do not deserve their fate of falling behind.

This is really is so obvious, but 99% of race realists are Libertarians or other hard rightists so it’s clear that they have not thought this through very well.

About the book, the poor sod who wrote what looks like an excellent volume is about to creamed and smeared all over US society. I feel for him.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

31 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Government, Intelligence, Libertarianism, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Sociology

31 responses to “New Race Realist Book Out

  1. George Mack

    What he’s proposing is sort of like eugenics.

    • I would not give my whole million to some poor nigger, as you put it. But I think I should be forced to give some of my money to the poor, and of course that includes Blacks. I would rather give it to them in services such as rent subsidies, food stamps or medical care. If you give them cash, they might just blow it on stupid stuff.

    • Yep! They will blow it on rims and bling.

      My dad once sponsored a nigger MMA fighter, and he entered into the UFC as light heavyweight. However, the 150,000 my dad gave him to train and shit was spent, quickly, on 24 carat necklaces, bracelets, and a new set of car rims.

  2. Steve

    Charles Murray is a libertarian, correct. He advocated a grand compromise where there is a universal basic income along with small government ie minimum government intervention and no social programmes. He says you give us small government in terms of intervention and we’ll give you big government in terms of expenditure. So he has thought about providing for people and advocates a universal income. Part of his idea is to revitalize the civil society for which America was once remarkable (he cites Alex de Tocqueville)- people will have to form voluntary associations and community groups to cater for basic needs (replace social programmes), although the money in the form of basic income is provided by the government.

  3. Yes I feel sympathy or empathy or compassion or whatever it is I feel for Black people. They are just fellow human beings, just like me. Only by chance did I end up White after all. I could have easily have ended up Black them. So when I see a Black person, that is basically me. Or at least that is the mindset that I try to get myself into (not sure how well I succeed).

    When did I even say that Blacks were genetically inferior to Whites? Be specific.

  4. Steve

    Somebody being genetically inferior to you doesn’t mean you can’t feel empathy for them. I feel empathy for my dog. My mum actually feels empathy for the fish in the pond. Compassion isn’t only for those equal or superior- it will be pretty crap if it was. Its the worse off most in need of it!

    In any case, the IQ range of blacks is, say, 50-200- the full range. There are a lot of blacks (30-40% I’m guessing, can anyone tell me?) that are superior in intelligence than the average white person.

  5. Pingback: Roundup of Book Reviews of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance | Occam's Razor

  6. Jason Y

    Nearly all WN is based on hate. They aren’t called hate groups for no reason. Of course, people are medically unequal in academics, just like they’re medically unequal physically and every other way. When I say medically I mean the cause may or may not be genetic.

    Anyhow, our society actually believes in inequality, though it denies it. Do you see any retarded people treated as equals? No, despite all the PC language, they are not, and nobody complains. However, kind folks don’t hate the retarded, though they are treated “special”.

  7. Jason Y

    WN, just like American imperialism, needs an outside threat to justify the ideology. That’s one explanation for the hate of the so called “inferior”.

  8. For the sake of argument, I accept your premise that because blacks are lower IQ and less capable, they must be taken care of and provided for.

    But if it is true they are too inferior to handle their own affairs, then it also follows they should be watched over carefully so that they do not do anything too stupid.

    Obviously blacks who cannot care for themselves should not be able to vote. I wouldn’t let a child vote so why should any other dependent? After all, these people don’t know what is good for themselves.

    Black women should also be forced to undergo sterilization after accepting welfare benefits for her children. After all, she’s obviously too stupid to find a husband before she marries, so the state should prevent her from having more children than she can handle. Also, sterilizing the inferior blacks will help to prevent more inferior blacks from being made.

    As for the blacks who can function as normal adults, they should be allowed to vote and have as many children as they want, provided she stays married or can provide for the children herself.

    And while we are at it, this treatment of blacks should extend to all races of peoples, since all people have the same fundamental rights. Thus anyone who is of too low IQ and less capable must be taken care of and provided for, and they must also be protected from their own ineptitude.

    In this way, over 100 generations or so, society will only be left with the brightest and best while the stupid and weak are phased out of existence. And Eugenics will have its day of eternal peace and prosperity.

    All of the above flows from your starting premise,

    “If all the races are equal, then that decreases the case for social programs because it implies that people are poor and it’s all their fault that they are impoverished. But if they are permanently less intelligent and they had nothing to do with this fact, then it’s not their fault that they ended up poor”

    So you must be compelled to agree with me.

    • All Americans have a right to vote.

      Although I believe in parenting licenses, I think that all or most all women have an inherent human right to have a child or two, whether there is a man around or not.

      Thus anyone who is of too low IQ and less capable must be taken care of and provided for, and they must also be protected from their own ineptitude.

      I actually agree with this in a sense. This is why I favor giving Blacks benefits such as rent subsidies, food stamps and medical care that can only be used for rent, food of medical care and cannot be converted into cash. I would rather give them those bennies than the equivalent in cash because if you gave them the cash, they could not be counted on to spend it wisely on food, rent or medical care. In fact, the money would probably be gone the second it touched their palm. Or maybe even before!

      In this way, over 100 generations or so, society will only be left with the brightest and best while the stupid and weak are phased out of existence.

      There is nothing wrong with it in theory and the goal is admirable, but I am a strong opponent of Eugenics in most cases. However, in the US the retarded are often encouraged not to breed and that is a form of Eugenics. I do support this form of Eugenics. I also support voluntary Eugenics in the form of private sperm banks and whatnot. In addition, I support immigration Eugenics. Unless you have an IQ of 98, you should not be allowed to immigrate to the US or become a citizen.

      All of the above flows from your starting premise,

      “If all the races are equal, then that decreases the case for social programs because it implies that people are poor and it’s all their fault that they are impoverished. But if they are permanently less intelligent and they had nothing to do with this fact, then it’s not their fault that they ended up poor”

      So you must be compelled to agree with me.

      What is funny is that I do not agree with you at all.

      I just looked at your Twitter feed and you a radical rightwing Alt Right PUA – Game – MRA – anti-feminist – anti-Left and pro White nationalist guy. Why in God’s name did you just pen this weird liberal screed then?

      • People from long generations of elite families don’t have low IQs or much regression to the mean no matter where they are from. It would be very insulting for someone from a family such as this to be expected to have a low IQ just because of the country they’re from.

      • “What is funny is that I do not agree with you at all.”

        Because you are a hypocrite, and too scared to follow the logical conclusions of your starting premises. Again – at no point did I advocate my personal views. I am responding to YOUR premises, and carrying them to term.

        Premise, from your original blog post:

        “Inequality between the races means that the monetary achievements and wealth of high achieving races are completely undeserved as they only got it by lucking out in the genetic lottery. So we should redistribute their undeserved gains to the lower achieving races who do not deserve their fate of falling behind.”

        Which means –

        1. There is absolutely no reason to give someone the right to vote if they cannot be expected to spend their own money or time wisely. If we are to dictate their entire lives to them, then giving them the right to vote is against their interests. They will just vote for the wrong candidates and end up hurting their standard of living.

        2. Likewise, it makes no sense to subsidize their breeding either since it just bankrupts the system.

        Ergo:

        Because of points 1 and 2, no liberal will EVER accept HBD. The liberals will scream and rave against science because it is easy to see how acceptance of HBD will lead to policy changes that most liberals find unplatable.

        And this is also the reason why 99% of HBD’ers aren’t liberal (in the 2000’s sense of the term), because liberalism isn’t compatible with reality.

        The fact you cannot refute this without merely saying, “I disagree,” is proof you are living in contradiction.

        Although I do praise you here for the following statements, for being honest enough to accept the logical implications of your views:

        “I actually agree with this in a sense. This is why I favor giving Blacks benefits such as rent subsidies, food stamps and medical care that can only be used for rent, food of medical care and cannot be converted into cash.”

        ^ I applaud you for making such bold statements. But the conclusion here is if a person cannot be expected to take care of themselves, why should they be given the right to vote and make important policy decisions for others (and themselves)?

        “In addition, I support immigration Eugenics. Unless you have an IQ of 98, you should not be allowed to immigrate to the US or become a citizen.”

        Hahaha, try telling this to a liberal. And again, if we are using IQ to determine who is let into America, why not use IQ as a measure to determine who can vote?

        “I just looked at your Twitter feed and you a radical rightwing Alt Right PUA – Game – MRA – anti-feminist – anti-Left and pro White nationalist guy. Why in God’s name did you just pen this weird liberal screed then?”

        Because I am a rational man who can accept other people’s arguments and take them to their logical conclusions without feeling anything.

        Now, since you seem interested enough in my own views, I will tell you, the implications of your presentation are far from liberal. Indeed the genetic differences tell us that people should be separated according to race (asians and whites should be separated from the rest) and encouraged to breed with the fittest members. Women should also be denied the right to vote so they will spend more of their time making babies and thus ensuring the strongest genes are passed on.

        Things like “equality” and “human rights” are fast becoming archaic dogmas in the face of genetic science.

        • Tulio

          “1. There is absolutely no reason to give someone the right to vote if they cannot be expected to spend their own money or time wisely.”

          And how exactly would you determine if someone can spend their own money or time wisely? If you were to draft legislature denying people the right to vote based on how they spend their money and time, you have to define very precisely what behavior disqualifies someone from voting. Not only that, you’d have to explain why spending one’s time and money frivolously means they are not qualified to have a say so on political matters that effect their lives regardless. I’m sure if one scoured your spending and time habits we could indeed find frivolity as well. You are a PUA who writes long detailed posts about how to be promiscuous and fuck lots of women by dancing. So why can’t some judge look at your activities and deny you the right to vote on the same grounds?

          “If we are to dictate their entire lives to them, then giving them the right to vote is against their interests. They will just vote for the wrong candidates and end up hurting their standard of living.”

          So you’re saying anybody of any race that gets any form of assistance from the government should be disqualified from voting? Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Because that would mean a HELL of a lot of people would be disqualified from voting, including many white people as well. I see no reason why medicare and social security shouldn’t be included as well. I mean if all these dumb people were actively saving and investing their entire lives they shouldn’t need a subsidy from the government in old age, right? Isn’t that consistent with the Libertarian point of view?

          “2. Likewise, it makes no sense to subsidize their breeding either since it just bankrupts the system.”

          Samseau, you are buying into the hype. You believe this myth that people on welfare are multiplying like rabbits and bankrupting the nation. It’s bullshit right-wing propaganda. Btw, TANF makes up 0.7% of the federal budget. I’d hardly say it’s “bankrupting the system”. If you want to trim the fat in government TANF is hardly the place to start. Let’s start with Social Security, Medicare and military expenditures. Even if you cut welfare rolls in half, it isn’t going to make any significant dent on the federal budget. TANF is simply NOT what is bankrupting us. But talk to any right-winger and they swear the deficit is due to a bunch of lazy blacks and Hispanics breeding out of control and living off the dole.


          http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/welfare/davids.html

          The typical AFDC family consists of 2.9 people, according to the Children’s Defense Fund, compared to the average 3.16 nationwide. Some 42 percent of AFDC mothers have just one child, and 30 percent have two kids. Just 10 percent of AFDC families include four or more youngsters.

          And contrary to the stereotype of families forever dependent, nearly three out of four women receiving aid get off welfare within two years.

          ““I actually agree with this in a sense. This is why I favor giving Blacks benefits such as rent subsidies, food stamps and medical care that can only be used for rent, food of medical care and cannot be converted into cash.”

          ^ I applaud you for making such bold statements. But the conclusion here is if a person cannot be expected to take care of themselves, why should they be given the right to vote and make important policy decisions for others (and themselves)?”

          First off most blacks don’t need welfare and are not ON welfare. The majority of blacks work. Are we forgetting that most blacks are middle class? Quit painting entire races with such a wide brush. The picture is far more nuanced. You are hear talking about taking away voting rights for an entire group based on behavior coming from a minority within that group? Are you a fucking Nazi or something?

          Secondly, as the link above pointed out, most people on welfare are only on it temporarily. You are buying into welfare queen myths. Most people that receive aid are not living on it for years on end. The typical welfare user is someone who temporarily fell on hard times. My family was one of these in the 80s. My dad was an auto worker at GM. The factory laid him off for a year. My mom didn’t make enough to carry the family. We went on assistance. When production came back at the factory, my dad was called back to work and everything has been fine ever since. My dad is now retired but when both my parents reached their peak earning years, their combined income put our family comfortably in the middle class. I’m sure they’ve more than paid back in taxes over their 30 years or working than they took in temporary assistance. So are you saying my parents shouldn’t have had their voting rights taken just because they fell on hard times? If that’s where you stand, well then FUCK YOU, FASCIST ASSHOLE.

          “Now, since you seem interested enough in my own views, I will tell you, the implications of your presentation are far from liberal. Indeed the genetic differences tell us that people should be separated according to race (asians and whites should be separated from the rest) and encouraged to breed with the fittest members.”

          This is rich, Samseau is a mixed-race white nationalist who believes in racial separation. What were you saying about walking contradictions? Someone with Samseau’s views should be advocating that Asians stay in Asia and only breed with each other. But since mixed-race Samseau only wants to fuck white women, separating whites and Asians ain’t going to fly for him so he has to make an exception there for himself.

          “Women should also be denied the right to vote so they will spend more of their time making babies and thus ensuring the strongest genes are passed on.”

          And let me guess, ethnic minorities should be denied the right to vote as well, right? Go ahead and tell us where you stand on that? I have a hard time believing that someone who thinks women shouldn’t vote wouldn’t think the same about minorities. So tell us where you stand on blacks voting.

          “Things like “equality” and “human rights” are fast becoming archaic dogmas in the face of genetic science.”

          Despite whatever you think, I am a human being every bit as much as you under the Constitution and have the same rights and protections under the law as anyone else. If you think race should have any implications on someone’s human rights than you sound like you belong in Nazi Germany. Thankfully however, people like you will be relegated to the lunatic fringe of the internet. Anyone that expressed such opinions in public with their real name will be barred from ever running for office or attaining any position of power.

        • Look jerkoff, you’re banned. Violation of Comments Rules. Reason: Hostile tone.

          Those are not the logical premises of my views. Nothing on Earth absolutely follows from my views.

        • “”You are a PUA who writes long detailed posts about how to be promiscuous and fuck lots of women by dancing. So why can’t some judge look at your activities and deny you the right to vote on the same grounds?”

          Because I can take care of myself? I’m not on the dole. The above indicates to me your reading comprehension is poor.

          Obviously I am talking about people who are on the dole. However, I’m not advocating any of these positions. I’m running with the initial premises set forth in the original post. Read more: your poor reading comprehension.

          “Samseau, you are buying into the hype. You believe this myth that people on welfare are multiplying like rabbits and bankrupting the nation. It’s bullshit right-wing propaganda. Btw, TANF makes up 0.7% of the federal budget. I’d hardly say it’s “bankrupting the system”. If you want to trim the fat in government TANF is hardly the place to start. Let’s start with Social Security, Medicare and military expenditures. Even if you cut welfare rolls in half, it isn’t going to make any significant dent on the federal budget. TANF is simply NOT what is bankrupting us. But talk to any right-winger and they swear the deficit is due to a bunch of lazy blacks and Hispanics breeding out of control and living off the dole.”

          TANF isn’t the only welfare program. You forgot Medicare and Medicaid, which together make up 25% of the federal budget. Most of the money for these programs are to help out the young bastard children that are popped out year after year. When combined with TANF and god knows what other special ‘help the poor’ programs are out there, we’re probably looking at at least 30-35% of the budget just spent on the dole.

          “First off most blacks don’t need welfare and are not ON welfare.”

          False.

          “The majority of blacks work.”

          False.

          “Are we forgetting that most blacks are middle class?”

          False.

          “Quit painting entire races with such a wide brush. The picture is far more nuanced.”

          False.

          “You are hear talking about taking away voting rights for an entire group based on behavior coming from a minority within that group?”

          False. Never made any such claim.

          “Are you a fucking Nazi or something?”

          False.

          “Secondly, as the link above pointed out, most people on welfare are only on it temporarily. You are buying into welfare queen myths. Most people that receive aid are not living on it for years on end.”

          False. Any child born to a single mother is de facto put on welfare. I worked within the State of Mass’s welfare system for years. I’ve seen how it goes.

          Next, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, ergo the black race would be fucked over bad in America without welfare.

          “So are you saying my parents shouldn’t have had their voting rights taken just because they fell on hard times?”

          The laws could be written such that someone who is only on welfare for 1 year or less would not lose the right to vote, but not for those who are. Stuff like that. No need to get hung on particulars when we’re only discussing hypotheticals.

          “This is rich, Samseau is a mixed-race white nationalist who believes in racial separation.”

          False. I clearly said asians and whites. Again, try reading for comprehension. But this isn’t even my complete view, I’m just exponding on HBD. I don’t think many people actually realize the implications of HBD.

        • Tulio

          “TANF isn’t the only welfare program. You forgot Medicare and Medicaid, which together make up 25% of the federal budget. Most of the money for these programs are to help out the young bastard children that are popped out year after year. When combined with TANF and god knows what other special ‘help the poor’ programs are out there, we’re probably looking at at least 30-35% of the budget just spent on the dole.”

          —-
          http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
          “Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 22 percent of the budget in 2013, or $772 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $498 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 54 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP,”
          —-

          So Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP account for 22% of the federal budget. Children aren’t eligible for Medicare. Medicare and CHIP account for 1/3rd of the 22%. So we’re talking about 7% of the federal budget. But obviously not all of these people within that 7% are welfare queens, nor are all the kids bastard babies. As I showed you prior, most people that use assistance are on it temporarily while they get back on their feet. I wouldn’t include Medicare within being on the dole since these are seniors that worked their whole life and paid into the system. So if you only include Medicaid and CHIP, you’re talking around 7%. Nowhere close to your 35% figure.


          “First off most blacks don’t need welfare and are not ON welfare.”

          False.

          “The majority of blacks work.”

          False.

          “Are we forgetting that most blacks are middle class?”

          False.

          “Quit painting entire races with such a wide brush. The picture is far more nuanced.”

          False.

          I love how you dismiss everything I said yet don’t post any facts to back your claims.

          http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

          Black labor participation rate is: 61.5%
          White labor participation rate is: 64%.

          Not a huge difference. So what point were you making?

          http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/poverty/
          Poverty rate for blacks is 27.4%, just over a quarter. So that would mean the remainder are either in the middle or upper class.

          And if you’re going to refute my response above, do so by using government stats. Not one word vapidities.

          False. Any child born to a single mother is de facto put on welfare. I worked within the State of Mass’s welfare system for years. I’ve seen how it goes.

          Provide proof of this. I call bullshit. First off, not all single mothers are poor. Many are professional women making a solid income. So what the fuck would their kids automatically go on welfare? That doesn’t even make sense.


          http://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

          Single mothers are more likely to be poor than married couples. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2011 was 40.9%, nearly five times more than the rate (8.8%) for married-couple families.10

          Poverty rates were about one in two for Black (47.3%), Hispanic (49.1%), White (33.0%), and Asian (26.3%). Among all other ethnic groups, Native American female-headed families with children have the highest poverty rate (53.8%).

          While single mothers are more likely to be poor, the majority of them are not, almost 60%. Even with black women, a slight majority are not poor. So don’t automatically assume that a single mother is incapable of supporting a family without assistance. Most of them earn decent incomes.

          Next, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, ergo the black race would be fucked over bad in America without welfare.

          Read my above response. Or better yet, please post some stats showing how many of America’s 42 million blacks are living on welfare. Break it down for us since you claim to know all this.

          False. I clearly said Asians and whites. Again, try reading for comprehension

          So you believe in racial separation where whites and Asians are separated (together) from non-Asian minorities? Why not just advocate that Asians remain in Asia and breed amongst their own? And whatever mixed race people breed with other mixed-race people?

        • Tulio

          @Samseau

          Please answer my question. Since you are against women voting, tell me in plain English whether blacks should be allowed to vote.

        • Tulio, Samseau cannot answer you. He is banned.

      • Yay Tulio! Thank you so much for your comment!

  9. Pingback: Charles Murray: Is single parenthood as unhealthy as smoking? | Zee-Rebel

  10. Tulio

    There has been some discussion in this thread about whether blacks are spendthrifts. There was at least one person providing an anecdotal report of some black guy who spent his money on bling.

    On the question of whether blacks spend their money frivolously, I don’t have a clear answer on that. Most of us that post here are pretty smart and know that you can’t draw wide conclusions based on anecdotes because they are so subjective and the sample size is too small. I just ran across something interesting that may shed some light:

    —-
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/

    “The stereotype of the low-income people enrolled in government programs is that they spend the money on frivolities and are unwise with their budgets. But the data proves otherwise. Families who receive public benefits such as housing assistance, welfare cash assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, and Social Security Income (SSI) for the disabled or low-income elderly have much smaller spending budgets than those who don’t receive benefits and spend a bigger portion on the basics such as food, housing, and transportation, according to an analysis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ”
    —-

    Some of you may see a small but visually prominent number of blacks wearing gold chains and think this is typical black behavior. But it may very well be the case that blacks spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities. Of course we only notice the blacks that are flamboyant with their spending. The ones that aren’t are basically invisible. That’s one of the ways that we form stereotypes. It’s the same reason why if one white says something racist to a black, that’s all the black person is going to remember and all the whites that day who did nothing racist to him fade into the background. Same dynamic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s