Modern Day Epicyclists Once you accept some of the truths that I (repetitively) hammer home in my posts, you start to realize that much (most?) domestic policy and news takes as its starting point the "axiom of equality". A case in point is this article, in which Harvard "researchers" (I use the term generously) complain that merit scholarships are disproportionately going to the wealthy and white rather than to the poor and black. The fact that such a disparity is observed would be unsurprising to anyone familiar with three facts: IQ predicts income, IQ is heritable, and blacks have lower mean IQs than whites. But those who can't accept such facts (or, more likely, can't state them for fear of censure) must fall back on the most convoluted of environmental explanations. Witness the commentary of Steven Den Beste on the matter. He begins by identifying the problem with the researchers' reasoning:

Harvard's researchers are cheating. They're using the patina of a scientific study to deliver political commentary. What Harvard's researchers discovered was that the administrators responsible for these programs were administering them honestly, and awarding the scholarships without regard to race or financial means, based on academic performance and test scores. That's what the Legislators said they wanted when the programs were set up, and that's apparently what the administrators have actually been doing. Harvard says this is broken, but it sounds to me as if it's working as designed. And that's the point: it's not that these programs are broken, but rather that Harvard's researchers disagree with the goals of the programs.

But once embarked, Steven can't stop himself from offering a solution. The truth is that no intervention short of genetic engineering will solve this problem, but that's not acceptable to the politically correct. Steven is not anonymous, and so can't acknowledge this for fear of being drawn and quartered by the PC crowd. Thus he says:

If you want more black kids to be awarded merit scholarships, go out into the cities and start encouraging those black kids to study harder while they're in high school so that they learn more, get better grades, and higher test scores. Tell them that studying is for their own benefit, and that it isn't "being white". But talk to them as individuals, don't talk to them as a group. Grouping someone is the worst thing you can do to them, no matter what color they are. Part of why a lot of black kids don't study now is because they think they're part of a group and that those in that group aren't supposed to study. So destroy that grouping, and all other groupings, and tell the kids that each of them is a group of one. Don't teach them to be proud of being black, teach them to be proud of being themselves.

Of course, by talking to black kids and mentioning "being white" you are acknowledging that groups exist, that blacks are members of a group, and that their group membership is material to their situation. But leave that aside for now. The acceptance of the false "axiom of equality" leaves him open to an emotional reprisal from Iain Jackson:

Yes, there are cultural issues at work. Yes, people bear their own responsibility for what becomes of their lives. There are also issues of being poor, and of going to wretched schools, which do make a difference, and in which these children have no control. You can be as selfdirected, as ambitious as you like, and at that point in your life, if the people and information and other resources aren't there for you to build a proper educational base, you will struggle. It is extraordinarily offensive to essentially state, "It's all black kids' fault that they're not better students." It is extraordinarily offensive to say, "Don't treat them as a group," when you're doing exactly that.

Fault is perhaps not the right word, as it implies that there was choice in the matter. As free will reduces to unpredictability, for any single student we may grant that choice exists. But when we can predict the fate of populations with certainty, it is counterproductive to assign blame. In any case, a subsequent politically correct rebuttal from Steven will have to implicitly acknowledge that some sort of social spending (or social "encouragement", though the difference is academic) will serve to ameliorate the black/white difference. And thus Steven joins the ranks of the modern day epicyclists, a group which includes most neocons. In doing so he inadvertently sabotages his best hope for dealing with Transnational Progressivism. Let me clarify this all important analogy. Trying to understand race relations without the knowledge that criminality and IQ differ by race is like trying to understand planetary orbits without accepting the heliocentric model. You have essentially three options:

1. Put your head in the sand and deny that race differences exist, or insist that all disparities are the fault of a poor environment brought about by white racism. This is the position of the NY Times and many liberals, and is analogous to the Catholic Church's staunch insistence on geocentrism in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

2. Accept that race differences exist but insist that they are the fault of a poor environment brought about by the bad decisions of black people. (Conversely, insist that Asians succeed solely because of their purportedly non-genetic work ethic). This is the position of neocons like Thomas Sowell and McWhorter and now Steven Den Beste. It's analogous to those who used the theory of epicycles to predict the motion of the planets without accepting the heliocentric model. This group will correctly predict that blacks will commit more crimes and do less well in school than whites, but will use an entirely roundabout way of getting there that does not generalize because it misses the fundamental facts. Below is an example of the tortuous epicyle theory in action; note its resemblance to the various contortions nurturists use to explain black academic performance without acknowledging the influence of genetics.

3. Accept that race differences exist and that they are partly genetically caused. Note that the nature/nurture dichotomy is misleading, as genes certainly affect the environment that you choose to inhabit. This is the position of evolutionary conservatives like myself and Steve Sailer. We're the Galileos who encounter tremendous resistance in getting our ideas across. Most people have been inculcated to not even give us a fair hearing, preferring to hear the boots of the Gestapo over anything we say. And while we're not burned at the stake, we are effectively silenced in academia. Right and Left deplore us because we accept the conclusions of Darwinism. Despite all of this, we know that we speak the truth and will be eventually vindicated once we understand the genetic basis of intelligence well enough to modify it. Perhaps at that time, we'll merit a footnote in the history books.

The analogy is apropos in more ways than one...just like the epicyclists of old, the nurturist theory uses convoluted methods to explain incontrovertible data. Their effort is necessary to preserve the intellectual foundations of a theory based on emotion rather than logic.