Hammer and Sickle Cell
“Brain death. School damage. Straight-As!”-Jello Biafra
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen found that there was a correlation of 0.733 between GDP and national IQ over the eighty-one nations they measured. There is also a clear correlation between IQ and crime. That in addition to the fact that racial differences—from athletic ability to intelligence to predispositions to certain diseases—are scientifically uncontroversial people are capable of pattern recognition and are hard-wired to be wary of outsiders is, for the Left, only proof-positive that “harmful stereotypes” continue to persist in the modern world. There’s just one problem with that, says Lee Jussim:
The double standard of heavy criticism of criteria for accuracy but acceptance of the very same criteria when used to demonstrate phenomena seeming to provide insights into sources of inequality is not restricted to interpersonal expectations. The same pattern can be observed regarding research on stereotype threat. Stereotype threat was originally the idea that cultural stereotypes about intelligence (e.g., for African-Americans) or achievement in some domains (e.g., math for women) leads to anxiety or concern among members of those groups for confirming those stereotypes…Such anxiety then undermines their academic achievement (e.g., Steele 1997). Stereotype threat has gained widespread visibility and acceptance among social scientists…I find one aspect of such acceptance peculiarly ironic. Despite the frequent objections to IQ tests that periodically appear in social science, editorial, and intellectual outlets…I am aware of no social scientific criticism of the use of cognitive ability tests as criteria for establishing stereotype threat-related phenomena. If cognitive ability tests are invalid, then research identifying conditions under which some people score higher or lower on an invalid, meaningless test would not seem to be particularly informative. Why, then, have cognitive ability tests been the target of so much criticism as measures of intelligence or achievement, but not as criteria with which to establish stereotype threat?
W.E.B. DuBois popularized the idea of the “talented tenth,” the notion that only one-in-ten blacks are capable of becoming leaders of their race; DuBois wrote: “My own panacea of earlier day was flight of class from mass through the development of the Talented Tenth; but the power of this aristocracy of talent was to lie in its knowledge and character, not in its wealth.” The mixed-race DuBois’s assessment of blacks is actually striking in its frank acknowledgement of the nature of the “mass” of blacks: “It is the problem of developing the Best of this race that they may guide the Mass away from the contamination and death of the Worst.” In several crucial ways, his analysis should extend to all races and their natural aristocracy of intellect and character, but as pertains to disparities in the United States specifically, just 16% of blacks have IQs over 100, and a paltry 5% of blacks have IQs over 110.
There are racially-centered gender disparities as well; Hispanic and black women are twice as likely as their male counter-parts to graduate from college. More “systemic racism”? Not so fast; Thomas Sowell informs:
Studies had shown that females predominated among high-IQ blacks. One study of blacks whose IQs were 140 and up found that there were more than five times as many females as males at these levels. This is hard to explain by either heredity or environment...white males and white females have the same average IQs, with slightly more males at both the highest and lowest IQs.
This is not a measure of testing biases, either, as none other than the American Psychological Association states, “Large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of Blacks and Whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction.” IQ testing is actually one of the most reliable and accurate metrics we have for determining “g,” or general intelligence. Per The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:
For black and white students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 in 2008, there still remains a huge 149-point gap in SAT scores. Even more startling is the fact that in 2008 black students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored lower on the SAT test than did students from white families with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 dollars.
So much for the “economic disadvantage” argument regarding black under-performance. For the 2009 SAT scores, whites with household incomes of less than $20,000 scored 12 points higher (out of 1600) than blacks from household incomes between $160,000-$200,000. For the 2005 test, again from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:
In the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT and 363 black students scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Nationwide, 33,841 students scored at least 750 on the math test and 30,479 scored at least 750 on the verbal SAT. Therefore, black students made up 0.7 percent of the test takers who scored 750 or above on the math test and 1.2 percent of all test takers who scored 750 or above on the verbal section.
Blacks, mind you, were 10.4% of the test-taking population measured. Given every chance for a leg up with greater government spending and additional programs and incentives to advance black student performance, the last thirty years has actually seen an increased gap in SAT scores between white and blacks students, by fifteen points to be exact. From the College Board’s 2005 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
From the College Board’s 2015 data, we learn that 48,000 whites and 52,800 Asians scored at least a 700 on the math, as opposed to 2,200 blacks and 4,900 Hispanics; 16,000 whites and 29,570 Asians scored above a 750, compared to 2,400 Hispanics and less than 1,000 blacks.
The reason so many minority students seem to be perpetually agitated, with blacks and Hispanics particularly susceptible, is because the number in those populations who benefited from Affirmative Action are in way over their heads, usually the bottom half of their class, and they are frustrated. They often don’t have the mental acuity to engage with complexity so they default to the lowest common denominator, the simplest explanation that makes sense, supplied by their Marxist professors: You are failing because of discrimination, oppression, et cetera. These newfound activists now have an outlet for the frustration they feel, and they can channel it into all of the anti-white hate-mongering we’re seeing manifest itself on so many college campuses.
Attendantly, the curriculum becomes less rigorous because we wouldn’t want to start kicking all those nice federally-subsidized affirmative action acceptances out onto the street, would we? There are big bucks to be made. Additionally, the professoriate has largely become a service economy, especially considering the pay. Most colleges pay between $3,500-$5,000 per course for an adjunct, which, given the level of specialization needed to be a professor (most universities require if not a PhD then another terminal degree from the Masters-level, and/or a well-established track record of publication and intellectual contribution), this is highway robbery. Nearly half of all classes at the college level are now taught by adjuncts who have no guarantee of classes from semester-to-semester and who also receive no benefits. Yet most of these professors seem to support the Marxist ideologies of the institutions they work for and their mission of indoctrination, while at the same time they are being exploited by the very ideological embodiment they purport to support. Even more damning, the institutions in practice are anything but Marxist—they are actually practicing cut-throat capitalism.
Nevertheless, the increasingly anti-Western, anti-white rhetoric pumps from these reeducation camps like waste from a broken sewer pipe, and the more students who have their loans under-written by the federal government to enter into the camps, the more who are exposed to this toxic worldview, which finds strongest purchase among the most vulnerable mentally and capability-wise who would probably not be in the university system in the first place but for the present climate and set of circumstances. As just one example of what has become standard practice on university campuses these days, Evergreen State has decided to continue its long and illustrious tradition of the Day of Absence for colored people:
“In addition to POC centered events there will be antiracist workshops for white folks and people who do not identify as POC. Please bring a dish or your own packed lunch and dishes! Potluck-style. No one who’s [sic] intentions are to cause harm are allowed.”
They apparently no longer teach the basics of grammar up there in Olympia, WA, and that is not (just) a “snappy” aside, it is genuinely part of the problem. Instead of the daily tempest-in-a-teapot for ideologically-distorted “issues of race,” maybe they ought to be learning real subjects. I’m more than sure the biological causes of these much-kvetched-about racial disparities won’t come up, as that would be perceived to be “causing harm.” Chalk it up to “systemic racism and oppression,” then.
Why do you think colleges have become such breeding-grounds for therapeutic demands, for increasing gender, equity, and race studies departments, and for ever-expanding speech codes that wall off entire areas of inquiry? It’s because we have broadened the collegiate base of students, and, coupled with racial acceptance quotas that put blacks and Hispanics in universities way over their ability level, they agitate for their surroundings to become more congenial. Hence, a black can spend four years talking about their “lived experience,” learning nothing and not being challenged, and emerge with a degree no more prepared for the real world than when they entered, probably less so in fact.
The advancement of individuals beyond their capability has severe consequences, not just for those who should rightfully occupy a spot in a university or job but are passed over due to onerous federal legislation, but for those who are themselves advanced beyond their capability. There is a twenty-point IQ gap, on average, between blacks and whites in professional positions, meaning blacks are at even more of a disadvantage relative to the general population (fifteen point IQ gap between American blacks and whites) after being “aided” by affirmative action than they would have been otherwise. This professional aid follows collegiate aid and, quite possibly, high school aid. Thus, for the better part of a decade, non-whites and –Northeast Asians are often advanced well beyond their capabilities, as well as sheltered from the possibility of failure, and when they reach a situation where merit becomes the sole or primary determinate of their value, they suddenly find themselves severely—and genuinely—disadvantaged.
Returning specifically to the collegiate setting, per Inside Higher Ed: White and Asian students completed their programs at similar rates—62 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively—while Hispanic and black students graduated at rates of 45.8 percent and 38 percent, respectively. The impact on the fabric, mission, and purpose of the university—frankly its very construction—has been radical. Setting the Cult-Marx takeover of academia aside for a moment, a rampant inferiority complex has taken root among blacks and browns who have begun to agitate for the university to alter its rigorousness, or else provide different, less challenging avenues (such as ethnic and gender studies) where the students may be more successful. I used the following quote by Judge Macklin Fleming in response to Yale University’s 1969 decision to establish a racial quota for each incoming class in my piece “Triumph of the Shrill,” but its prescience makes it worth considering here again:
The faculty can talk around the clock about disadvantaged background, and it can excuse inferior performance because of poverty, environment, inadequate cultural tradition, lack of educational opportunity, etc. The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites… No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.
As just one recent example among a depressing litany, the University of Pennsylvania Graduate Students Union (GET-UP) generated a list of grievances based upon the claim that, wait for it… “Graduate student workers from marginalized backgrounds still experience structural inequalities throughout their time at the University of Pennsylvania, and these problems often go unnoticed, ignored, or silenced.”
Using the collective bargaining power of their union, GET-UP hopes to accomplish the following: “[Making] diversity about more than just inclusion, multiculturalism, or celebrating our differences, but about building the collective power to transform the structural inequalities that so many students from marginalized backgrounds face on a daily basis.” Here’s how they believe they are going to accomplish this:
· Working with the administration to collect and make readily available data on diversity and discrimination on campus;
· Improvements to concrete material conditions such as higher stipends, summer funding, and healthcare for dependents;
· Increased funds for Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) to hire more staff, with a focus on increasing diversity and specifically addressing the experiences of marginalized students;
· Greater transparency about funding, degree requirements, teaching and research opportunities;
· A legal contract with provisions against discrimination;
· A formal, neutral, centralized, legally-backed grievance procedure for all cases of discrimination;
· Greater visibility of the issues that Master’s students from marginalized backgrounds face, such as the difficulty of securing financial aid;
· Legal support for students from marginalized backgrounds;
· Trainings for faculty, staff, and graduate students about discrimination, microaggressions, and diversity;
· More effective teacher training for graduate student TAs that foregrounds the role of diversity, discrimination, and privilege in the classroom;
· Lobbying for graduate student workers to become more involved in hiring processes;
· Holding the university accountable to its commitment to diversity;
· Following precedents set at other universities, such as the University of Michigan, including a provision in the union contract that provides compensation to graduate students who work to address diversity and racial inequality on campus, rather than relying on their unpaid labor;
· Offering support to existing minority student groups on campus.
This looks identical to the Dartmouth College “students of color’s” list of demands, or the University of Michigan’s, as the list notes, or American University’s, or so many others. Besides the fact that the university already does a lot of this stuff, these are graduate students at an Ivy League university. “Colored” (of color?) or not, they can count themselves among the most infinitesimally small percentage of privileged human beings in history. Oh but, “Students from lower-income backgrounds have said they don’t receive the material support they need, like better healthcare, travel grants, summer funding, or adequate funding to complete their degrees.” Most middle-class students do not have that, either. And the part where, “International students worry about visas, taxes, and the lack of funding opportunities for non-citizens”? About how, “Undocumented students across the university constantly wonder if the administration will actually defend them from deportation”? Stay home. Simple.
What this list translates to is, “We want equitable treatment of all colors, creeds, and sexualities, but we want preferential treatment for these particular ones!” If that weren’t the case, why feel the need to, “Foreground and make visible the experiences of students from marginalized backgrounds”? If they cannot win based on merit—and why would someone successful bother agitating for such a list?—they will endeavor to change the playing field, the same way the Bolsheviks gutting everything from the Boy Scouts to sports are doing. This manifesto of simmering discontent by the privileged Penn graduate students “of color” is saturated in Cult-Marx jargon—we don’t have to guess where it was learned.
A good idea is a good idea regardless of who thought of it, and a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of who thought of it. If, as James Frank Dobie once mused, “The average PhD thesis is nothing but the transference of bones from one graveyard to another,” we can see the application of academy-aided Marxism transporting bones from a graveyard with an awful lot of plots to the new intersectional one being freshly prepared. It is vital here to consider what Tomislav Sunic tabbed “the cavaderous Freudo-Marxian scholasticism that rots in the dank catacombs of postmodern academia.” The Frankfurt School, synthesizing the terribly destructive philosophies of Rousseau, Marx, Gramsci, and others, set up shop on American college campuses in the 1930s and never left, mutually reinforced by the Boasian anthropologists and other Marxist apologists who had established a presence on campus even earlier, only growing stronger with time to the point that we now have almost total ideological conformity among the professoriat.
The “neo-liberal” project more broadly, which is simply George Lincoln Rockwell’s “anvil of capitalism and hammer of communism” in sheep’s clothing, propagates an ideology of global egalitarianism, buoyed by both the secular theocracy of “social justice” and the pre-Germanized Christian doctrine of universalism, a pair of ideologies that have sought to deracinate and uproot Western Man in order to encourage him, finally, to turn the gun on himself. One way or another, our enemies vow that whites will learn to hate themselves and everything they’ve built, and everyone else not already harboring a congenital anti-white resentment will, too.
 Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.