A Quick and Dirty Guide to Racial Apologetics
With Sources! [Mar 25, 2024]
I felt like making something akin to my infamous “Melting Pot Post” but fundamentally more basic. I also see the utility in giving a sort of crash course on the basics of formal logic, which I am structuring this argument around. I don’t think it’s really necessary to set it up like a formal proof though, but I think it might have a particular ethos appeal to the “fallacy soycuck” crowd. That is to say: present it as a proof to soycuck liberals but not to CivNat NormieCons. For NormieCons, you want to present it as a more informal argument (which I will also do).
Intro To Logic
Before we get started I am going to unload a lot of technical jargon on you, which will make normies think you are really smart even though this is stuff you will learn in any intro to logic class.
Premise (P)- The supporting claim(s) of an argument.
Fundamental premises are the most basic. Sometimes these aren’t even stated and are just assumed. Liberals love to attack fundamental premises because they are subversive. We will talk about this more later, with specific examples.
Conclusion (C)-The takeaway of an argument.
Most of the time you are not arguing one single proof (basically anything other than some thought experiments will be like this). Usually it’s a nested argument where each premise is the conclusion to its own argument. This level of recursion can make things quite tricky. Since each premise in the following argument will basically just be repeating the abstracts of scientific studies, this argument is an example of a nested argument (the subordinate arguments just aren’t my own). We will talk more about this later as well.
Formal Fallacy-Fallacies which pertain to the structure of an argument. Circular logic is a common example of a formal fallacy.
There are a lot of these but I’m not going to spend much time on them here.
Informal Fallacy-Fallacies which pertain to the content of an argument rather than the structure. This usually means that extraneous data has been included, data has been misinterpreted, data has been misrepresented, etc. Hasty generalizations are a common example of formal fallacy (meta-ironic whoa).
Same as above. Been there, done that.
Validity-Refers to the structure of an argument. A logically valid argument contains premises that logically follow from one another and lead to a logical conclusion. An argument is logically invalid if it commits a formal fallacy. Note: an argument can be logically valid but still commit an informal fallacy.
Sound Arguments-If an argument is logically valid AND all of its premises are true, an argument is sound.
Deductive Argument-Usually referred to as a “top-down” approach; in philosophical terms this means going from the general to the particular. Taking general premises to make specific conclusions. Sound deductive arguments always have true conclusions. Example: If it is not raining, the sky is always blue. It is not raining in Hawaii, therefore the sky is blue in Hawaii.
This argument will be a deductive argument; if I were to reformat the conclusion to be about some specific person then it would be inductive. For example: if we turned the current conclusion into a 4th premise, and then added premises about a young black boy named Jamal, and then added a conclusion saying that Jamal probably has a low IQ because he is black.
Inductive Argument-Usually referred to as a “bottom-up” approach; in philosophical terms this means going from the particular to the general. Taking specific premises to make general conclusions. If an inductive argument is sound, the conclusion can be true (it probably is) but it isn’t necessarily true. Example: Bob has taken a morning walk every day for the past 10 years. Therefore, Bob will most likely take a morning walk tomorrow (but he might not because he is sick or something, idk this is a hypothetical).
Cogency is a component of inductive arguments, but not really relevant to this post. Just figured I’d give you one last buzzword to look up for funsies.
There are also a lot of different types of argument, with varying levels of complexity, but I’m not going to go lay them out here. If you really want to impress normies you can use logical operands/connectives on them when texting as well.
Argument For The Existence Of Genetic Racial IQ
Ok now for the argument itself:
Non-White IQ is, on average, lower than White IQ (with the exception of East Asians).
Socioeconomic status only accounts for a small portion of the racial intelligence difference.
“The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test” in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2005). https://archive.ph/laTcS.
Weinberg et al. “The Minnesota transracial adoption study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence” in Intelligence Vol. 16, Iss. 1, Pgs. 117-135 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(92)90028-P. [Click here for archived version].
National Assembly of Educational Progress. School Composition and the Black-White Achievement Gap (2015), pgs. 17 and 19.
IQ is largely an inherited trait.
Robert Plomin and Sophie von Stumm. “The New Genetics of Intelligence” in Nature Reviews Genetics Vol. 19, Iss. 3, Pgs. 148-159 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2017.104. [Click here for archived version].
Conclusion
Therefore, the lower than average IQ of most non-Whites who are also non-East Asian is primarily caused by genetic factors.
Non-Proof Format
With the exception of East-Asians, non-Whites have an average IQ that is lower than that of Whites. Because socioeconomic factors (this can be expanded to environmental factors if you like; the sources still work) only account for a small percentage of this difference—and because IQ is a largely heritable trait—the racial IQ gap is predominantly caused by genetic differences.
Expected Objections
In my years of interreacting with liberals, both in online debates and irl liblarping, I have come to see some trends in their style of argumentation. Assuming they if don’t do some variation of simply calling you racist and ignoring everything you say, they will probably object in a very predictable way.
Near as I can tell, the logical structure of this argument is valid. The premises are basically entirely interchangeable with each other and the conclusion is pretty obviously related to the premises. I don’t see any formal fallacies here.
Informal fallacies are going to be where basically all objections arise.
Starting from the first premise:
“The Bell Curve has been ‘debunked’ so the first premise is false.”
This will probably be the average libfart’s knee-jerk reaction to the first premise. NormieCons probably don’t even know what this book is so they won’t say anything. This retort is really something of a hasty generalization which, as you might remember, is a fallacy itself. Putting aside the fact that The Bell Curve really hasn’t been debunked (that’s why the 2nd and third premises are included), I only used The Bell Curve for its data on IQ. It’s not really different from just citing the IQ studies directly. In fact, I almost did that. But then I realized it would be a lot funnier (and a lot more rhetorically appealing) if I baited libfarts into their pre-programmed response.
Don’t be surprised if they say something similar about people like Arthur Robert Jensen, John Philippe Rushton, James Watson (the man who discovered DNA btw) as well as any number of other modern scientists who were race realists. Just as a general retort, remind them that these men were world class scientists—pioneers at the top of their field—before suddenly and precipitously losing literally all of their accumulated credibility for making these comments.
Failing that, they may say:
“IQ scores don’t mean anything anyways; they are not accurate indicators of intelligence.”
This is another classic libfart line, but it’s one you only hear people who don’t actually know what IQ is say. Honestly, if they say this they are probably just going to start spamming studies that they didn’t read (and have since been refuted) or just stop responding.
Regardless, IQ has a close association with what is called the g factor (general intelligence factor), which is itself the best indicator for things ranging from spatial awareness to financial success later in life. This is a complicated subject that relies on a lot of moving parts, from human psychology to statistics. Way more than I intend to cover here, however I will recommend the following book on the subject:
Arthur Robert Jensen. The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Westport: Praeger, 1998).
“The methodology of the original studies cited for the IQ of various racial IQ groups used in The Bell Curve is flawed.”
This is honestly probably just a hail Mary on their part. I can almost guarantee you that they don’t know what the methodology of the original surveys was. Ask them to be more specific in how it was flawed. They will probably crumple under this, but if they don’t you will have to do some research of your own to refute their rebuttal. I ain’t analyzing the methodology of every survey for you, pal.
Continuing on to the second premise:
This premise is most likely to be the most contested one, assuming they overcome their pre-programmed libfart reaction to seeing The Bell Curve mentioned. That’s why I put so many sources in it.
As I formatted it, I can see a few possible objections. Some of them are mentioned in the articles I cited themselves, but all of these possible objections were mere speculation so you could just dismiss them on those grounds if you felt like it. Some of these objections are also refuted in other studies I mentioned. Regardless, I will cover some here:
“SAT scores and other forms of standardized testing used in public schools do not have a close association with the g factor, and are therefore not an accurate indicator of overall intelligence.”
This one is sort of true. The standardized tests you see in school do not have as close of an association with the g factor as IQ tests do (gee, wonder why that is). In fact, most of these tests are not as closely associated with the g factor as they were a few years prior (GEE I WONDER WHY THAT IS). Some tests, such as the SAT also include a writing section which cannot be mathematically quantified like a simple multiple choice test is (if you read the source from P2-a, the author actually acknowledges that this was deliberate so that scores could be quietly padded to reduce public outcry). Others are just not as accurate indicators of the g factor as IQ tests are, for any number of reasons—none of which are worth getting into here. The main thing here is that IQ tests are the best standardized tests for determining IQ. The SAT may not be as closely associated to the g factor as it once was, but it is still not a bad indicator. It just isn’t as good as IQ.
Also, for the record, you can test g factor without doing an IQ test so this isn’t circular like you may be thinking. IQ tests, which are usually administered on paper, are just the best way of doing g factor tests on paper specifically (semantic confusion over IQ tests and more generalized g factor tests is pretty common). A g factor test can use all manner of things, most commonly timing someone’s ability to solve spatial puzzles (Piagetian tasks are a famous application of this), and testing their memory. Again, I would recommend the book I mentioned earlier for better understanding this.
“Broad cultural attributes among blacks—such as parental style, commitment to learning, and work ethic—bear a heavy responsibility for the black-white educational gap.”
I literally just copied this objection from the source used in P2-a. Source P2-b refutes this claim. IF YOU ARE BLACK PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THIS ARGUMENT!!!!!! GOOD PARENTAL STYLE IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER INTELLIGENCE!!!!! IF YOU MAKE THIS POINT YOU ARE TACITLY ADMITTING BLACK PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!!!!
“Black students in predominantly white schools who study hard are often the subject of peer ridicule. They are accused of "acting white" by other blacks. This so-called ghetto chic in the form of peer pressure to shun academic pursuits undoubtedly has a dragging effect on average black SAT scores.”
Again, I copied this objection from source P2-a. Source P2-c refutes this claim; see the figures below:
As you can see, when the black student density is 60-100% (the school is 60-100% black), black students scored the lowest on the NAEP scale. When the black student density is 0-20%, black students scored the highest, regardless of SES and education characteristics (though the gap does shrink). Therefore, black students preform better when there are less black students.
“In many cases black schoolchildren are taught by white teachers who have low opinions of the abilities of black kids from the moment they enter the classroom. These teachers immediately write off black students as academic inferiors and do not challenge them sufficiently to achieve the skills necessary to perform well on standardized tests.”
Again, copied from source P2-a. Source P2-c refutes this claim; refer back to figure 10. Even when controlling for education characteristics, including teachers, black students still have an average NAEP scale score 15-20 points lower than White students, with variability based off of black student density.
There are more objections listed in source P2-a but none of them are any good. I’m sure people can come up with other objections as well, but they will also probably suck. Point being, Figures 9 and 10 (above) from source P2-c are your friend. Figure 9 debunks socioeconomic status (SES) and Figure 10 debunks “systemic oppression” in the class room.
Continuing on to the third premise:
“The methodology of this study is flawed.”
This is basically the only objection I can see to this study. I don’t think the methodology is flawed, but maybe some people do. I don’t see any potential flaws in it, so I can’t really predict what they will say. Best I can do is to advise you to read it yourself and just be ready to defend it. This study isn’t even racialized; it just looks at parent and offspring. I just included it to prove that IQ is genetic.
Fundamental Objections
As I mentioned earlier, each argument has fundamental premises. This is usually extremely basic stuff that is usually just taken as granted by everybody. In this case, the main fundamental objection here would be:
“Race does not exist as a genetic construct; race is an entirely social construct.”
If someone says this, well congratulations my friend you have found a certified Gay Race Communist! They are probably just going to throw jargon (that they don’t understand) and word traps at you. All you really need to do here is lay out some thought experiments. For example:
If race is not a genetic construct, how do websites such as Ancestry.com work?
Websites like 23andme, Ancestry.com, etc. all use genetic markers to trace your ancestry and provide an ethnic breakdown. If you contend that race lacks a genetic component, then you need to prove that these websites basically just make up your ethnic breakdown entirely.
Similarly, the field of anthropology should be mostly pseudoscience if race lacks a genetic component.
Similarly:
If race lacks a genetic component, why do mixed race people have difficulty getting organ transplants from people of either parent’s race?
I actually used this one on my professor in “Philosophy of Race” once after he kept getting on my nerves and it really freaked him out. I think it actually changed his worldview (I’ll explain more in a second). Anyways, this is pretty well known by /ourguys/ but see below for sources:
There are also A LOT of studies on this subject. Google it and you will get a ton of results.
After the thought experiments, you may try saying:
You do not understand the theory of your contemporaries; they agree that race does exist as a genetic construct, however the believe that most if not all of traits we ascribe to racial groups are socially constructed.
This is true; I’ve read the literature and been in the classes. The people who originally came up with the “race is a social construct” mantra knew that race exists genetically, in at least a general capacity. I mean there is a reason black people have black skin, after all. But dumb people, such as my aforementioned professor, take this literally in a way reminiscent of what Lionel Verney outlined in his short essay On Populism and Aristocracy. Thus: the junior in undergrad is able to catch his professor with his pants down.
If they are really retarded, however, there is one other possible fundamental objection to be made here:
“Because contemporary science is stricken by academic misconduct, a reproducibility crisis, and a compromised peer review process, most if not all of the studies you have cited are worthless. Therefore, the truth values of each of your three premises is unknowable. Consequently, your conclusion’s truth value is unknowable and thus a genetic link between race and IQ remains unproven.”
If any of you have read my article The Peer Review: Musings on the peer review process, then you’ve heard this before. I don’t think a libfart would ever make this argument, since science is the religion of the liberal, but if you run in to some sort of weird anarchist or something they might try it.
Either way, this is a double edged sword. If these studies are bunk, there could be an ever greater link between race and IQ than already thought, and non-Whites could have an even lower IQ than previously thought. This is not any more or less likely than the inverse, and by making this argument (which is a hasty generalization btw), you must acknowledge the possibility of either outcome.
This works out well for the Right, because academia is dominated by liberals who hate our guts, so them being wrong can’t be bad for us. Combined with the fact that corrective studies usually vindicate us over liberals, and this becomes a very powerful argument for the Right.
Where to Next?
I intentionally made this argument pretty simple so that you can use its conclusion as a premise in your own proof/arguments without much difficulty. I also provided you with all the necessary sources, a basic guide to using it, and a cheat sheet to potential objections for the same reason.
There are a lot of ways you can use this argument. Maybe you want to use it to advocate for the repatriation of all non-Whites? Or perhaps for justifying White colonialism in the past, present, and future? Or perhaps for the institution of a new racial caste system? Or maybe you just want to use it to make liberals’ heads explode! The sky is truly the limit here.
I will also provide additional materials you might want to use either in supporting this argument or supporting your own.
It’s also a good idea to keep in mind that, at least in China (which usually has the highest IQ, globally), they often engage in a little bit of statistical skullduggery that skews their test data. In all likelihood, they are probably around the same IQ level as other East Asians (Korea and Japan) or maybe lower based on comparatively poor environmental factors.
Valerie Strauss. “China is No. 1 on PISA — but here’s why its test scores are hard to believe” in The Washington Post (12/04/2019).
It is also important that East Asian countries are almost entirely ethnically homogenous, whereas Western countries (particularly America) are not. As we have already established that If you are not White or East Asian you probably have a low IQ, this means that Western countries have a lower average IQ than they should—were these countries more ethnically homogenous (read: White), then their average IQ would probably be the same as East Asian countries.
I seem to recall an SAT score breakdown of Asians and Whites where Asians scored significantly better in Math and Science, while Whites scored significantly better in Reading and Language. When you average the cumulative scores, Whites and Asians have pretty much the same SAT score, but their best categories are very different. This seems to imply that while Asians and Whites are roughly equally intelligent as one another, Asians have a higher Logical-Mathematical IQ whereas Whites have a higher Verbal IQ. Interesting, because this pretty much completely affirms the “Occidental vs. Oriental” worldview.
I don’t seem to have the data saved in my chud archives unfortunately, but I will update this post if I ever find it.
Bibliography/Further Reading
Arthur Robert Jensen. The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Westport: Praeger, 1998).
John Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen. “THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY” in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Vol. 11, Iss. 2, Pgs. 235-294 (2005).
John Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen. “James Watson’s most inconvenient truth: Race realism and the moralistic fallacy” in Medical Hypotheses Vol. 71, Iss. 5, Pgs. 629-640 (2008).
John U. Ogbu. Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement (New York: Routledge, 2009).
This is the book that source P2-a (#9 here) liked to mention so much. It has a lot of cope, but you can use it as a double edged sword in conjunction with source P2-b (#10 here) and Source P2-c (#8 here) like I did.
National Assembly of Educational Progress. School Composition and the Black-White Achievement Gap (2015).
Richard J Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press Papers, 1996).
Robert Plomin and Sophie von Stumm. “The New Genetics of Intelligence” in Nature Reviews Genetics Vol. 19, Iss. 3, Pgs. 148-159 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2017.104. [Click here for archived version].
“The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test” in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2005). https://archive.ph/laTcS.
Weinberg et al. “The Minnesota transracial adoption study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence” in Intelligence Vol. 16, Iss. 1, Pgs. 117-135 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(92)90028-P. [Click here for archived version].
Valerie Strauss. “China is No. 1 on PISA — but here’s why its test scores are hard to believe” in The Washington Post (12/04/2019).
I would argue that premise 3 does not lead to the conclusion on the grounds that inherited traits may not be genetic or purely genetic in nature. An example would be the experiments that created permanent, multi-generational, changes (and even new lifeforms) through electrical - and not genetic - means.
However, this is a criticism of the purely genetic conclusion, and not the main point, so it's somewhat mute