What Is Race Realism?

By The Realist • 12/27/06

The monster in the depths.

The culture of the age that we live in is founded on a lie: racial egalitarianism. It is an article of faith among the elites that govern the West that the races are the same in abilities and temperament, and that it is only racial bias in the present or in the past that prevents all races from performing at the same level.

This dogma has been conventional wisdom among the Western elites since 1950, when the United Nations published its “Statement on Race,” which declared: “[T]here is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is the same…. [G]enetic differences are not of importance in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of Homo sapiens.” Link, p. 102.

In the succeeding years, this dogma has filtered downwards from the elites and entrenched itself to such an extent that it is dangerous for any Westerner to contradict it.

The heart of race realism is recognizing this lie for what it is. Both the findings of the best scholars and simple common sense force us to recognize that the races are inherently different. But holding onto the truth is a hard duty, as it means refusing the dominant ideology of our culture, which constantly tries to persuade us that racial equality would be achieved if only people, and especially whites, were less racist.

The idea that the races are innately different flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that is promulgated by the mass media and many experts. It may seem odd that I am trying to persuade people to renounce the conventional wisdom. Last week, in criticizing the conspiracy theories of David Duke, I argued that conventional wisdom ought to be trusted in almost all cases. The reasonable person should reject it, I said, only where the evidence against it was overwhelming. Any challenge to conventional wisdom had to meet three stringent criteria:

There must a respected school in the relevant community of experts that thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong.
The community of experts and other shapers of opinion must have a powerful motive for not recognizing the truth.
Facts of which we can be absolutely certain contradict the conventional wisdom.

Very few challenges to conventional wisdom meet these criteria, but the challenge of race realism to racial egalitarianism does. Studies of the black-white gap in intelligence prove beyond any doubt that the race realist perspective is correct.

The school of researchers that argues for the biological basis of racial intelligence differences, among whom are psychologists Arthur Jensen, J. P. Rushton, and Richard Lynn, have solid academic credentials and publish in peer-reviewed psychological journals, and their work is respected even by those who disagree with them. Furthermore, in 1988, a survey of experts in intelligence and its measurement found that a full 53 percent believed that the black-white difference in IQ was partially genetic in origin. The same study found the news media consistently overestimated the percentage of IQ experts holding egalitarian views. There can be little doubt there still exists today at least a significant school of experts that hold race realist views.

The reason why this school exists is simply that the evidence for race realism is so powerful. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on black-white differences in IQ, and wherever blacks are in the world, they score substantially below the white mean of 100 on IQ tests. In reviewing the literature on black intelligence in Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn found that 57 studies of the IQ of blacks in Africa conducted between 1955 and 1994 consistently showed that they had a mean IQ of around 67¹. Fourteen studies between 1986 and 2002 of blacks in the Caribbean and Latin America found a mean IQ of 71². Thirty-one studies of American blacks between 1918 and 1998 found a mean IQ of 85³. Twenty-nine studies conducted in Britain and the Netherlands between 1966 and 2002 found a mean black IQ of 85 there as well⁴. In Israel, two studies of Ethiopian immigrants who are Jewish by religion but racially black showed they had a mean IQ of 65⁵.

Second, despite all the efforts made in the US to achieve parity among the races, the IQ gap has not gone away. Indeed, it has remained approximately the same for nearly a century. In 1917, the first large scale IQ tests in America found about a 17-point difference between the scores of the races; the most recent studies show the difference is about the same⁶. The equalization of spending on black and white education, government educational programs for the poor, diversity training, and all the rest of it simply has had no discernible effect on the racial IQ gap.

This in itself is powerful evidence that the black-white IQ difference is rooted in biology. However, there is much more evidence of this. First, psychologists know intelligence is a highly heritable (i.e., genetically determined) trait. The heritability of IQ is as great as 80 percent, meaning it is primarily determined by genetic background⁷. The more related people are, the greater the similarity in IQ scores. The IQ’s of identical twins have a correlation of 0.86, whereas those of fraternal twins have a much weaker correlation of 0.6. However, after they have grown to be adults, there is no correlation whatsoever between the IQ’s of unrelated children who are reared in the same household⁸. Given the strong heritability of IQ, it is exceptionally unlikely that such a large difference as that between mean black and white IQ has no genetic component.

Some of the most powerful evidence of the biological origin of racial differences in intelligence comes from trans-racial adoption studies. For example, a 1992 study examining the IQ’s of adopted white and black 17-year-olds raised in upper-middle-class white families found that despite their similar environment, the adopted children with two biological white parents had a mean IQ of 106, whereas the adoptees with two black biological parents had a mean IQ of 89⁹.

There is no doubt that IQ tests do measure intelligence. In fact, a person’s IQ is the strongest predictor of how well he will perform in school and whether he will get a well-paying, high-status job¹⁰.

In light of evidence like this, none of the cultural explanations of racial differences in intelligence and educational achievement are even remotely plausible. Some object that IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence because they are culturally biased. But the racial IQ difference appears even on reaction-time IQ tests, in which subjects must respond as quickly as possible to a simple visual stimulus, such as a flashing light or a change in color in a dot on a screen¹¹. It is difficult to see how such tests could be culturally biased.

Nor do arguments that blacks score lower on tests because of socio-economic deficits hold water. If class background explains differences in IQ scores, why do blacks raised in upper-middle-class white families score so much lower on IQ tests than whites from the same background? Moreover, black high-schoolers from affluent backgrounds regularly score lower than whites from poor households on SAT tests, which are a good measure of intelligence¹².

Do the shapers of public opinion have a motive to deny racial differences in intelligence? Very much so. In fact, they have several different reasons for denying racial difference, which will be the subject of future writings on this website. As one example, Western elites hold racist doctrines responsible for the rise of Nazism and the genocide it brought about. The elites think the key to preventing such atrocities in the future is to discredit the idea of racial differences. The Nazi genocide was very much on the minds of the writers of the UNESCO statement on race quoted earlier, which contains this passage:

The myth “race” has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years it has taken a heavy toll in human lives and caused untold suffering. It still prevents the normal development of millions of human beings and deprives civilization of the effective co-operation of productive minds. Link, p. 101.

There was thus a clear ethical and political agenda behind the UNESCO statement that gave its framers and subsequent generations of Western elites the motive to portray the evidence in a biased manner.

The work of race realist scholars proves that our culture ignores not only innate intelligence differences, but a principle of the utmost importance in explaining human behavior. If the popular media sweep such well-documented findings under the carpet, who knows what else they have swept there too? Once one has realized that innate racial differences exist, one begins to suspect a whole hidden reality beneath the surface of things that explains phenomena that are so mysterious to the talking heads on the news programs. To be a race realist is to constantly sense this monster in the depths.

If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started.

Notes and References

Richard Lynn. Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis (Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers, 2006), 31-34. ↑
Ibid., p. 40. ↑
Ibid., pp. 42-43. ↑
Ibid., pp. 48-49, 52. ↑
Ibid., pp. 52-53. ↑
J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains,” Psychological Science 17, no. 10 (2006): 921-22. Link. ↑
J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, no. 2 (2005), p. 252. ↑
Nancy Segal. Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior (New York: Penguin, 1999), pp. 50, 53. ↑
R. A. Weinberg, S. Scarr, and I. D. Waldman, “The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence,” Intelligence 16 (1992), 117-135. Quoted in “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” pp. 257-58. Link. ↑
Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994), pp. 148-53, 63-89. ↑
Rushton and Jensen, 2005, pp. 244-45. Link. ↑
Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (New York: Touchstone, 1997), pp. 403-05. ↑

Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.

Comments

“Once one has realized that innate racial differences exist, one begins to suspect a whole hidden reality beneath the surface of things that explains phenomena that are so mysterious to the talking heads on the news programs. To be a race realist is to constantly sense this monster in the depths.”

That “monster in the depths,” is Marxism; the great Red leviathan that has destroyed so much of Western Civilization and continues to do so in its latest “evolution,” multiculturalism. It is a vested interest of lies and deceptions, that seemingly both amuses and benefits the elites of this nation and throughout the West to perpetuate, in a twofold manner.

First, is the realization that they have nothing but contempt for the white populations that they “govern.” They are for the most part given to arrogance as a group, with the need to “validate” their existence through the dominance of their “fellow citizens” by way of their “superior intellectual” and economic advantages. By perpetuating the racially egalitarian myth and others (such as “humane” wars or building “democracies” within an Islamic society) they feel that they are “pulling one over on us,” and thus are proving us for the fools we are in their jaundiced eyes.

To an extent this is not a perception without merit, as viewing the enraptured faces of the mostly white heifers, that make up the rotating congregations of the Cult of Oprah attests to. One must accept for a fact, that at least 25% to as high as 33% of American whites are culpable of perpetuating this perception on the elites parts, as they have witlessly accepted the “dream.” So too, are the other 40% to 50% that uneasily accept the twilight state of indifference to the problem as a whole, but do “awaken” from time to time with regard to the problem; if anything they fuel this maddening drift toward the abusive hand of the “elite” because they create an endless state of frustrated ambivalence regarding their positions as a whole, that causes the “elite” to strike out with a vindictive glee.

Second, is the terror that must be felt by the “elite” holders of the ears of the rainbow paper tiger upon which they ride, no matter how arrogant and contemptuous they may be of the population that they openly deceive and abuse with its swatting paws. That 40% to 50%, that constantly drifts between lucidity and stupor on racial realities only inflates these ambiguous concerns of the “elitists,” because they are both affirming and discerning to the cause of multiculturalism as our “shared” ideology of “commonsense and sanity.”

Why?

That would be because they are the fulcrum upon which the whole game gets played out. If they should suddenly lurch toward the right, toward the other 17% to 35% that is awake, the house of Uno cards might just be swept aside?

In fact, that is the likely outcome as “diversity” begins to “enrich” more and more of their numbers in the expected manner. Revolutions, do tend to be a middle class sport, played in a dawn that abruptly fires a twilight?

And consumes “elites” and rainbows alike!

By John PM on 12/28/06 at 1:01 am

We are all equal in the eyes of God: Galations 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

That said, In my opinion the biggest reason the secular ruling elites are denying racial differences—empirical evedence notwithstanding—is for the purpose of promoting international and intRAnational racial harmony (for economic and governing purposes[not religious]). The sophistic arguments they use to sell their ideas coupled with the incoherent policies used to achieve the ‘appearance’ of equality are what racially-aware people ardently object to. All these policies and social experiments have come at the expense, detriment, and the likely, eventual, dissolution of White nations ONLY!

By Bud Miller (formerly a known as on 12/28/06 at 1:14 pm

Bud Miller certainly has the basics down.

By on 12/28/06 at 10:30 pm

Conventional wisdom can be challanged if the challange is based on evidence and facts. The problem with the conventional wisdom on race is that it simply isn’t true. Because conventional wisdom is supposed to be based on facts, and not ideology, I would say its time to “replace” this wisdom with the truth. To do so will require a shift in public opinion, and will have to happen one person at a time. But the fact that evidence points to our position will aid this process.

As for the last issue, the same cannot be said about DD’s views on jews.

By on 12/29/06 at 4:34 am

Race realism = spreading the belief in racial differences. People may disagree in how to cope with these differences, but at least realists let people know that they are there and we all can’t “just get along” or ignore them. A black person can be a race realist. A black person can’t be a white nationalist

White nationalism is the opposite of black nationalism, it is making a new white nation with new geographic boundries. There is nothing “real” about white nationalism. There is nothing “realist” about the kkk or neo-nazis etc, or “whiteland,” many of these people are too delusional to be described as “realist.” I would argue that many “white nationalists” have views of “reality” and “race” that are completely irrational, Christian Identity freaks, Neo-Nazis, Jew conspiracy theorists, and Klansmen come to mind. Those who support such nonsense and simultaneously call themselves “realists” do harm to “realism.” It is imperative that neo-nazis are not accepted into the inner circles of racial realism. It imperative that there is division, without this division, the best movements will be destroyed by the lower quality ones, eaten from the inside.

Race realism is simply part of my conservatism. I’m pro-white in terms of fighting double standards and insuring white survival because I think it’s the right thing to do morally, not because I automatically follow whites just because they are white, in fact I’m going against most whites. By rejecting the liberal nonsense spewed at you, the logical result is that race realism will lead to racial preservation, as even the lowest form of life promotes its own survival. This will require some government policies to change.

A few things automatically disqualify you from being a race realist:

If you literally believe Jews are an evil “non-white” imposter, you are not a race realist. Case closed.

If you believe in a homogenous “European race” despite proven divisions within Europe you are not a race realist.

If you go against scientific studies of race and deny race, you are not a race realist.

If you have a problem with me saying any of this, you definitely aren’t a race realist.

I’ll make the frank an honest comment, in realist fashion, that anyone who harbors scientifically intact viewpoints for 98% of the population and not the other 2% is not quite a race realist. In other words, if your views on Jews are delusional, by definition, you aren’t a realist because delusionality contradicts reality. Realism means reality for everyone, Jews too.

By on 4/7/07 at 7:17 pm

To what end?

This is my question to all race realists. To what end, all this research? I am a black immigrant living in the United States and I have been reading articles calling for more research into this subject. I myself have absolutely no problem with this research, since I think anyone has the right to pursue any scientific enquiry they deem fit. But I am not clear where all this is going to lead. So let’s suppose you and your ilk are correct and persons of African/black descent are statistically intellectually inferior than Whites and Asians, what would you like to do with these findings, policy wise? What is your dream scenario. Is it the steering away of black students from Math or Science courses toward more “practical” subjects? Should this affect the West’s approach to Africa, and if yes, how so? I really would love to know where you would like these findings to lead American society and more generally the West. I know you may not understand this being a member of one of the more superior races, but myself (being a cynic and misanthrope) am rather uneasy at the thought that as your inferior, my status in society would rest solely on you and your equals benevolence. History, if it is any kind of a teacher, teaches that men will seize upon any reason they can find to give in to their baser natures, the idea of others being his genetic inferior seems to me as good a reason as any.

I am a young woman not yet given the opportunity to become a mother, but I must say if and when I have a child, I am going to have to work extremely hard, no radio or t.v. etc., to make sure that he or she does not become saturated from an early age with the idea that his or her inferiority. What a crippling notion! (and thankfully for myself, one I was never exposed to) I fear for my unborn children.

k. in MA.

By on 4/7/08 at 5:22 pm

“So let’s suppose you and your ilk are correct and persons of African/black descent are statistically intellectually inferior than Whites and Asians, what would you like to do with these findings, policy wise?”

1)Blacks ought to be prohibited from immigrating into the US.

2)Any “program” of black uplift predicated on disproven theories of environmental influence upon black IQ, criminality, fecklessness and so on ought to be ended.

3)White people should regain their common-law rights of freedom of speech and association; that is, they should be free not to hire, live near or rent or sell homes to blacks. They should not have to send their children to school with blacks or be subject to the relentless anti-white propaganda that passes for “education” in American public schools.

“Should this affect the West’s approach to Africa, and if yes, how so?”

The West ought simply to leave Africa alone. Well-intentioned meddling in the affairs of Africa by the West has created a continent-wide class of feckless, overbreeding mendicants.

“I know you may not understand this being a member of one of the more superior races, but myself (being a cynic and misanthrope) am rather uneasy at the thought that as your inferior, my status in society would rest solely on you and your equals benevolence.”

Your “status” is beside the point and you’re free to think as highly of yourself as you like. You have no right whatsoever to determine what white people think of you. For some reason blacks rarely understand that.

If you’re so worried about your status no one will keep you from returning to the African nation of your choice.

By Cassiodorus on 4/7/08 at 6:52 pm

Kayla wrote:

“To what end, all this research?”

If you are sincerely interested in ameliorating race relations, you should seek to know the true cause of the race acheivement gap. If the cause is genetic, the best policies may be the exact opposite of what they would be if the cause is environmental.

Different measures would have to be taken depending on whether whites are a minority or the majority of the American population by the time they are willing to pursue policies that reflect their ethnic interests. Supposing whites to be the majority of the population, I would advocate

(a) the assimilation of legal nonwhite immigrants who can be assimilated into white American culture,

(b) the humane and voluntary repatriation of legal but unassimilable nonwhite immigrants,

(c) the humane and voluntary segregation of legal but unassimilable nonwhite immigrants who have no desire to be repatriated,

(d) the abolition of anti-discrimination laws so that (c) above may be achieved,

(e) the compulsory deportation of illegal immigrants regardless of race, and

(f) the reassertion of white values and culture.

“Should this affect the West’s approach to Africa, and if yes, how so?”

Yes. If the natural and human resources of Africa are incapable of being worked to the full due to a dearth of native intelligence, the productivity of the region should be increased through Western colonial administration. Philanthropists should seek to increase the average intelligence of the black race through the application of the laws of heredity to African conditions. Such measures should be supported by the black educated elite.

I don’t think you have anything to fear. Blacks have historically benefited from the assertion of white rule. Why is that the most prosperous Africans have always been those in closest proximity to whites? Why is it that 20,000 blacks were illegally entering Apartheid South Africa every year, whilst very few were leaving?

By on 4/7/08 at 8:54 pm