On Group Differences

The potential of differences between ethnic groups is perhaps the biggest taboo of liberal modernity, but what if such differences are real, could we acknowledge this and create a better tomorrow?

---

There may be no more controversial belief today than the opinion there are fundamental differences between ethnic groups. Making such a statement, or even being open to discovering whether such a statement is true, could get you fired from your job and see you rendered a social pariah for life.

You would be forgiven for assuming that such a state of affairs is due to the influence of neo-Marxian ‘social justice’ ideology, however, when it comes to the issue of group differences, discussing this issue is also heavily guarded and dismissed as a form of ‘hatred’ even by figures on the ‘right’. (1)

In truth, at one time I too would’ve assumed that anyone interested in such a topic was some clandestine supremacist, an individual with a perverse, heartless take on his fellow man.

Yet, over time it’s become evident to me that this is a legitimate issue to explore. I don’t say this as an expert geneticist or researcher in race and IQ, I say it as an average Westerner who frames this issue in political terms. More on that shortly. I became interested in this topic a few years back after listening to leftist-liberal Sam Harris interview the famed ‘racist’ Charles Murray, a villain to the liberal order due to his 1994 book The Bell Curve which claimed IQ differences exist between the various races in America.

Via this, and a few articles and podcasts, my fundamental assumption that anyone promoting such theories was an evil supremacist in the mould of Derek Vinyard from American History X was challenged. At this point, I had broken free of the liberal paradigm, something you can see ‘right-wing’ Douglas Murray struggling with below:

Heartless Monsters?

While Douglas Murray and his interviewer make some valid points in the above clip—we should always seek to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and compassion where possible, and it’s a legitimate concern that bad actors could use any potential group differences for unjust means—you may note he didn’t answer the question the young man asked him, instead he deflected and used the same tactic many-a-leftist use, albeit in a gentler manner, before virtue-signalling his alleged moral superiority.

More importantly, after stating he, ‘…didn’t know what you could do about (potential IQ) differences’, he went on to smear the questioner as someone akin to a weirdo who rants about ‘Jews’, thereby drawing the collective imagination to fascism and genocide. Admittedly, I don’t know the young man who questioned Murray’s motivations either but dismissing important questions such as this brings us no closer to discovering the truth. As I say, ‘extremism’ is a valid concern with such incendiary topics, but should that stop us from exploring one of the most important questions facing humanity?

Douglas Murray seems to think not. He seems to believe that such questions are irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst. I disagree. If claims surrounding group differences are true, this would impact the (Western) world massively. It would offer a new dimension to explain the disparities we see between groups, as well as challenge the fundamentals of liberalism.

What if it Were True?

If meaningful group differences do exist, the ramifications are huge. Such a recognition has the power to undermine all of our social policies, our educational and occupational systems, and even the core tenets of liberalism itself.

As the ‘father of DNA science’ James Watson stated in a Sunday Times interview in 2007—and destroyed his career while doing so—he is, “…inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really".

One may think that a pioneer in DNA research may be worth listening to, yet in liberalist modernity, one cannot freely explore the controversial issues of our time, even if they may aid us in understanding the human species all the more.

Now while there are many challenges to Watson’s views from academia, most of them can be summed up around the themes laid out below by philosopher of neuroscience Ned Block:

“Environmental differences... including the sort that affect Black Americans, are known to have large effects on IQ. Moreover, we currently have no way to quantify these effects. So we should draw no conclusion about the probability of any Black genetic IQ advantage or disadvantage.” (3)

As aforementioned, I’m not a geneticist or researcher in IQ meaning I can’t argue the ‘science’. Yet, I am a layman with a decent grasp of political and cultural rhetoric, which draws me to two key points:

1. If Watson had to be stripped of all his titles and roles for his views, to such an extent he had to sell his Nobel Prize to stay afloat financially, the only assumption one can make is that he was some crypto-fascist white supremacist. After all, if he was not, why couldn’t some brainiac show him the error of his ways? I find it hard to believe Watson is a crypto-fascist white supremacist rather than a hyper-intelligent and perhaps somewhat eccentric scientist, and

2. Given the question of race and IQ is far from settled, it would seem that Watson was ousted from academia not because he was necessarily wrong, but because he questioned one of the most treasured shibboleths of liberalist ideology, that is the ‘tabula rasa’.

The Tabula Rasa

The core of liberal ideology lies in the ‘tabula rasa’, Latin for ‘blank slate’. We can chart this back to the father of liberalism John Locke (4) who created the concept to explain how man processes and understands reality. Locke was an empiricist meaning he viewed the human mind as a ‘blank slate’. He believed a baby is born with no pre-existing ideas. Naturally, this means, in Locke’s view, that humans learn via experience.

Now, while Locke didn’t elaborate on what this meant in terms of ethnicity, with claims surrounding Locke’s ‘hypocrisy’ given he allegedly benefitted from the slave trade (5), one can see how this idea was fleshed out over time to conclude that all human beings are the ‘same’ regardless of ethnic background, that seeming race/ethnic differences are only ‘skin deep’. Further still, with the Christianisation of such messaging solidified by figures such as Martin Luther King, the tabula rasa belief has become something of a dogma to the modern liberal. Ergo, if you challenge this assumption, you’re not just wrong, but sinning against your fellow man and all good hearted 'moral’ people.

Are There Differences Between Groups?

While the debate rages over the potentiality of IQ differences in groups, in other areas, differences are accepted as standard with no controversy at all. The obvious example here is external physical differences, only the most committed and woozy ideologue would challenge the notion that differing groups present differing skin tones and physical capacities.

For instance, when the 100m Olympics Final comes around every four years, nobody expects to see a White or Asian-origin man in the line-up. Of course, you can find leftists claiming the athletic ability of West African-origin people in certain sports is a ‘myth’, but such views tend only to be held by leftist ideologues and inner-city trendies whose identity depends on unearthing supposed forms of ‘oppression’.

More importantly, physical differences get an easier ride a) because they’re much harder to deny, and b) because African-origin people (the king of all victim groups to the progressive liberal) tend to do well in physical pursuits meaning that no further research is needed on that field.

There is a middle ground here too, one which often sneaks beneath the radar. That is differing testosterone levels. This hits the headlines from time to time because of the higher incidences of prostate cancer among Black males. Rather myopically, progressives use this trend to run puff pieces on how Black folks are oppressed and ostracised from healthcare in the Western world.

The graph above shows the much higher incidences of cancer in Black males, many of these cases are due to prostate cancer which feeds on testosterone. Source in image.

However, once you start digging into the subject you find research indicates Black men generally have higher levels of testosterone than other groups (6), this is important as prostate cancer feeds on testosterone to grow (7). Ergo, we have clear evidence that biological differences can exist between groups.

Furthermore, as any gym-going fanatic will tell you, a high level of testosterone is the Holy Grail for young ‘lifters’ in the gym, so much so there are thousands of videos on YouTube exploring how to boost ‘T-levels’ naturally (and unnaturally), often gaining millions of views.

But why is testosterone so important? Well, according to Healthline, it increases muscle mass, increases facial hair production, leads to a deeper voice, enhances sex drive, and balances mood, while also improving verbal memory and thinking ability. Yet every plus comes with a negative in this world, and excess testosterone can lead to excessive aggression, mood swings, and an overactive libido to name but a few negatives.

If such findings are indeed accurate, would it not be logical to assume that differing levels of testosterone in differing groups would have an impact on the cultures a given group creates? Could it explain phenomena such as the ‘twerking’ trend emanating from the Caribbean?

How Could We Handle This?

If we were in simpler times, the aforementioned issues may not need to see the light of day, yet when almost every major Western nation is on the verge of making its historic European inhabitants a minority, such questions take on a new importance. After all, if there are group differences it would signal the end of Europe as we know it if European groups are no longer the majority in the continent.

The liberal assumption here is that such a demographic change is inconsequential, desirable even, and that goes all the way to European peoples going extinct. For a movement that’s supposedly ‘loving’ and ‘tolerant’ that always seemed odd to me—I’m not sure liberals would be happy or think it inconsequential to see the end of any other ethnic group.

This mindset is also present in ‘right-leaning’ Western Christians such as ‘Bob the Builder’, a straight-talking Christian who can be seen on social media bravely and eloquently defending his faith against a Muslim-dominated Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park.

I hope it’s evident I’m not picking on Bob here, he’s someone I admire and respect, yet his views as laid out below exemplify the issue with the modern (liberalism-infused) Christian outlook:

As you can see, Bob seems to think that if a ‘tribe’ doesn't follow Christ, it’s not worth saving. I understand what Bob is getting at here, that Spirit is more important than the physical in the Christian teaching—a view I’d share—yet this doesn’t mean we’d see Britain go to the dogs as it’s no longer ‘Christian’ and prioritise, say, a Christian-leaning state in Nigeria.

The reality is that one can love his fellow man, seek the best for him and still acknowledge group differences—there’s no contradiction there at all—furthermore, if group differences can indeed be shown to be true, we will need to approach such a topic with compassion and wisdom, rather than anger or derision.

To Bob’s second point here, no one is contending different races aren’t equal in dignity, that people can ‘race-mix’ if they wish, the point is whether group differences exist, and if they do, can we build a more coherent world on the back of the knowledge we ascertain?

In essence, if group differences are fundamental and true, and if we’re to continue the Western way of life, we must find a way to move beyond an increasingly unrealistic liberal ‘blank-slatism’ in a harmonious manner that leads to a better world for every group.

---

References

1: Murray, Douglas.: 2018. The alarming return of the IQ debate: https://unherd.com/2018/07/the-alarming-return-of-the-iq-debate/

2: Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A.: 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Free Press.

3: Block, Ned.: N/D.: Race, Genes & IQ: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/ned-block-race-genes-and-iq/

4: Locke, John 1689. An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press.

5: John Locke Against Freedom: https://jacobin.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property

6: Correlation Between Personality Traits and Testosterone Concentrations in Healthy Population. 2015: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26664080/

7: Largest study to date confirms role of two hormones in aggressive prostate cancer risk. 2022: https://www.ceu.ox.ac.uk/news/largest-study-to-date-confirms-role-of-two-hormones-in-aggressive-prostate-cancer-risk