Bad News For Biological Egalitarians.

William Saletan is penning a fantastic series of articles over at Slate.com * on the racial gap in intelligence. So far hes written parts 1 and 2 of a 3 part (perhaps more) series.

What I find truly amazing about it, is that though Slate trends fairly liberal (can't say about William as I don't know, though his "voice" in the articles is liberal.) There's no PC bullshit, no feel good platitudes, no racial epithets, just reasoned analysis and rational thoughts, Just like on this Blog really.

This should be terrifying feminists, minortists, and all biological egalitarians, that rare breed of cuckoo who believes that, despite all evidence tot he contrary, there is no innate physical difference between races, genders, or cultures.
You see the racial Gap is very very real. Now understand just by saying this, I have in fact invited people to hurl racist epithets at me, and label me little more than a bigot. Those of you whose definition of an open mind doesn't include your brains leaking out of your head may read on.
You see the racial gap isn't a function of who's better, but of which genealogies are better adapted to certain activities. Because all race really is, is genealogy, your particular extended family tree. Mine for example branches from Fort Lauderdale where I was born, to Scotland, England, Russia, Irish, Jewish, Germanic, Cherokee and Seminole. (Yeah, I'm a Mutt, its why Americans are Better, between massive racial interbreeding and the competition based economy we are the best "race" deal with it.) Now for some that list might include Bantu, Pygmy, Moor, Egyptian, and Persian, or perhaps Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.
But no matter who your grammy was, or wasn't, chances are, up till about a few hundred years ago, they had lived in the exact same place, among the exact same people, for centuries. And as such they evolved together.

So you may be asking, well OK, so why is this bad for feminists?

Well put that old noodle to work there son. We know the races show differences based on different evolutionary conditions right? And we know, that women, for the vast majority of human existence, took on different roles than men did. So doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps, just as Asians adapted to have a greater mental skills across the board than say whites do, perhaps women adapted to better carry out the roles they had taken? In fact even if there had been no biological difference between men and women in the first place,would we not expect to see differences arise over time due to women filling the same role consistently? In other words even if there were absolutely no biological basis for sex roles whatsoever, by consistently taking those roles wouldn't women have over time adapted to better fit them?

Now keep in mind this isn't even touching upon the subject of why the innate biological differences between men and women exist in the first place. I'm assuming for arguments sake, that you actually buy into feminist bullshit about there being no "sex" only "gender"

Add to that the facts that the "races" only separated somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago, and that women and men have been separate sexes since pre-humanity (literally, all primates are sexed as well, and in most males and female have different roles) and it seems even more absurd to assume that "gender is a societal construct"

As always my point, is that the answer lies not in putting men against women, or whites against Asians, but in everyone against everyone else. That's why Capitalism works, a dollar doesn't care if your white black or green, as you long you can get him together with his buddes. Thats why feminists, and minorists are destined to failure for their causes, disappointment, alienation, regret, and irrelevance, to their adherents. Eventually people stop buying the company line and actually think. It doesn't happen often, but when it does?
Its Fucking Glorious.





* Yes I read Slate. I also read NRO, The Huffington post , The American Prospect, Daily Kos, Human Events, The Nation , the WSJ , the NYT, Commentary, the Financial Times ,the CSM , the Economist, the New Republic, RCP, and and many many other publications which cant easily be described as either right/left, or even political such as Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Space.com.