I’ve pointed out before that science does not support the idea that men and women are different, nor does it support the idea that races exist. It appears to do so, since it provides experimental evidence that shows “clumps” that correlate with what are traditionally called “men” and “women” or “black” and “white”. Yet to see “clumps”, not a clear dichotomy, itself dissolves categories—you are an aggregation, not a duality; if certain factors change in the aggregation, perhaps through injections with hormones, your “data point” can move into another clump. We make no judgement about that fact, it’s science.
Darwinian thought is flexible; it sees these clumps as subject to change over time. Hence Gregory Cochran, seen as a “dissident scientist”, has a notable contention that Ashkenazi intelligence has developed in recent times. The stereotype—the Woody Allen, the New York intellectual—reflects a relatively recent trait that Ashkenazi Jews have acquired. So you might have thought “Jew = smart” but science shows that there is no intrinsic relation between intelligence and the Jews (and, in fact, the culturally constructed category “Jew” is not really useful for science; we’re interested in particular genes here, and to think about it as “Jewish” impedes the scientific investigation).
So what “the science” shows is that races are not stable entities. Evolution by natural selection is dynamic. The contemporary left claims it stopped thousands of years ago, men like Cochran say it did not (the reason the contention is controversial is that if it didn’t stop, if it’s ongoing, the racial differentiation that occurred in recent times explains a great deal in our societies as regards inequality).
However, substantially, post-Cochran and “dissident science”, you are left with the concept “European Jew” badly holed, for one attribute you thought characterised them—intelligence—turns out not to be intrinsic to them; and yet these cultural tropes cannot be separated from the biology because, as geneticists would be the first to admit, the decision to, e.g., privilege priestly scholars changes the types of genes that are passed on—so genetics and culture are gestalt; except culture is qualitative, value-based, and not amenable to scientific investigation—and there’s the rub, at a certain point genetics melds into culture.
That’s what Dawkins was on about with his “meme” idea, before it became a purely cultural artefact itself (ironically)—it was meant to “count” which units of culture survived in each generation, just as a gene is a “unit of biology”, so applying evolution by natural selection to what had previously been non-scientific; so far as I know, nobody has done that successfully—Dawkins is a monomaniac, every problem he sees, from stellar masses to big boobies, has to be “evolution by natural selection”. It’s his god.
Anyway, the point is that you may think you belong to a “race” or “nation” with certain characteristics, but “the science” says these characteristics are not intrinsic—they’re in flux all the time; and there’s no teleology to it, as some people used to apply to “evolution” (because the word has two meanings in English—an older one that’s normative, about an “upward development”, and a descriptive “evolution by natural selection”); we could well be, per JBS Haldane, evolving into sponges as much as ultra-intelligent star creatures.
This also applies to IQ. The IQ test is quantitative and it tells you how good a person is at solving problems. This is sometimes likened to virtue by IQ enthusiasts; they speak about “high-trust high-IQ societies”—the idea is that people over a certain IQ don’t do things like rob liquor stores, murdering a clerk along the way, because it is just an obviously stupid way to acquire money and you will almost certainly be caught (it’s to do with time preference, whether you’re impatient or not). Hence everything “good” (value judgement, tho) in a society comes about from a high IQ.
This misses the fact that “ability to solve problems” and “virtuous behaviour” are not synonymous; it elides them. Bernie Madoff had a high IQ—yet he “made-off” with millions upon millions of dollars that belonged to other people (you saw it coming, right?). This not to pick on the Jews, there are many “active problem-solvers” (that’s what you write on the CV, even CV jargon is related to IQ) from various races and religions who “solve the problem” of how to enrich and privilege themselves at another person’s expense. Of course, from a scientific perspective, that’s a value judgement and we exclude that—though we can say as a fact high-IQ people produce more economic value and commit fewer violent crimes (my modification to Hume: “No ‘is’ implies an ‘ought’, but it strongly suggests it,” and IQ enthusiasts like to give you the nudge, nudge wink, wink with these results).
As with race and sex, IQ tests are disintegrative too. You become someone with a “visuospatial” tilt or a “verbal” tilt because in the test breakdown you have a 45% skew on that test section—just as your “genetics test” for nationhood marks you out as no longer “English” but “12% Italian”, “25% Scottish” (except, of course, all these could also be represented as alpha-numeric data strings—and that would be more scientific; you become “15% Italian” because that is how to sell the test based on consumer narcissism, on the discovery of your “hidden ancestry”—actual hardcore science disintegrates these national labels, even if the genes roughly correspond to these cultural categories).
CG Jung never fully abandoned science, though scientific people don’t see him as scientific, but he got pretty close when he said that the outlier can have more significance than the main clump. In other words, the individual “data point” out on its own may have more significance than the generally observed regularity—and what he’s really saying is that quality is important; so, for example, Napoleon can be more important than the entire French economic situation in 1805 or whether the French have the same sails as English ships. It’s about wisdom.
IQ is really the opposite to wisdom—to be wise is to treat the whole, to think holistically; whereas “intelligence” is disintegrative and disembodied—hence it’s also universal, democratic. Why not import a thousand high-IQ Indians? Intelligence is intelligence in Delhi or London, just like copper sulphate is copper sulphate in Delhi or London <<Err, but is it wise?>>.
§
You may recall that American politics in the 2000s was characterised by people posting pictures of George W. Bush as a chimp while other people posted sickly postcard pictures of Jesus carrying a little lamb through a pack of wolves (shepherd’s crook to hand). It was all “rational scientific progressive people who like electric cars” versus “drooling religious fundamentalists who think Jesus rode a dinosaur about the Palaeolithic”. Well, that’s an accurate summation as regards the left-right divide: the right is for religion, the left is for science. It’s that simple. Scientific approaches to life are inherently on the left and men like Cochran and Sailer and so on are actually “dissident leftists” because they come at the world through science—and science is analytical, it’s disintegrative; it’s not holistic, it has no integrity.
Just to remind you, we spent the best part of two years locked up under house arrest on “the scientific evidence”—now that didn’t bother me, since I don’t like people and I’d happily sit in my room until doomsday if necessary; but it made many people angry—or they pretended to be angry, anyway. Then we had to take a vaccine, through moral bullying, that it has finally been admitted (as people have said for ages) is associated with strokes. Frankly, based on “the science” we could still be confined to our houses and administering ourselves a daily turmeric enema if “the science” told us to (as confirmed by a photograph of your ass uploaded to an NHS app). If you think people wouldn’t do that, then you’re deluded.
Common sense defies these actions. Yet common sense is not scientific; it’s not amenable to judgement by qualified experts in a peer-reviewed environment. People who support “the science” will say these ideas (experts, peer review) are a perversion and deviation from “true science”, but that’s not true. The idea there should be, for example, “an expert” gels with notions as regards IQ: an expert is a demonstrated problem-solver and his ability to solve problems has been shown, quantitatively and objectively, through his ability to pass exams (or, as some would like, IQ tests—except exams are taken as equivalent to IQ tests by people who study IQ). The opposite to an “expert” is a religious seer or common-sense bloke (“I’m not putting the turmeric enema up my arse, it’s a load of bollocks”).
Science is valueless, that’s what it’s proud of—and yet, as noted, value-laden culture influences gene flows and science still struggles to explain why the 9/11 suicide attackers were acting in their evolutionary interests (okay, it’s just forbidden to say by the left: it makes sense at the group evolutionary level—except the group itself is sustained by a non-scientific outlook that would be destroyed by analytical science; it is not possible to speak about “group evolution” because science itself is disintegrative as regards “the group”—stripped to the individual).
The modern scientific outlook derives from Protestantism: it derives from a war against “superstition”—even to the extent that Lollards wanted to pull down churches because a church itself, built in the shape of a cross, is a superstition; it’s a magic image in stone. Protestants hate “magic”—Roman Catholicism was “magic”, except religion is just codified magic. Protestants are atheists: once they eliminated almost all rites and ceremonies they abolished the final superstition—God himself. You even saw this in the New Atheists; they said, “We got rid of Thor, Demeter, and now there’s just one more god to get rid of—‘God’ with a capital ‘G’.”
The pagans were right when they called the original Christians “atheists” because they denied the gods—primitive Christianity is iconoclastic and anti-superstition, so it’s anti-magic and so anti-religion; and, as with Protestantism, it’s democratic and levelling—the attack on aristocracy, magic, and hierarchy is one single movement; and science is the anti-religion that facilitates this process—it’s the “non-superstitious” thought system that facilitates the process. Hence to be “scientific” is to be leftist; and it’s ultimately a Semitic outlook, hence why the Jews do so well in Protestant America—a valueless society that only cares about expedience and economic success. If you say, “I’m a scientific person,” you just said, “I’m a valueless person who only acts from expedience and what grants me power.” In a fairly tale, you’re the monster the knight in shining armour needs to put a lance through.
Once you have removed magic, all you have to explain the world is quantitative science and economic quantity—and that’s how most people are today; it’s ridiculous because people are so brainwashed into this view that the gods literally parade in front of them and have to be classified as “UFOs” because it’s impossible to see that. Bottom line: to be scientific is to be on the left, to be religious is to be on the right—the common-sense tussle played out in American politics is correct.