First things first: Why even exist?

Answer: because someone needs to work to create and elaborate a viable and just political philosophy consistent with likely truths of human biology and evolution.

So far, really only those on the right have embraced what appears to be basic biological facts about human groups and individuals and incorporated them into their political philosophies. Yet those philosophies even at their best incline far too much to a somewhat enlightened, but still effectively callous, form of Social Darwinism. It is easy, morally and intellectually, for those enamored of some stripe of Social Darwinism or a related raw individualism, and mostly indifferent to a goal of a larger social good and justice, to accept genetic differences among people. It is quite another for those who believe that a political philosophy must embody basic notions of the common good and of fairness to all–including, critically, the weaker members of society.

Indeed, with rare exception, those of a more liberal orientation treat human biological differences as anathema. Typically these thinkers and writers will pay lip service to science, and acknowledge that there is at least a real possibility that genetic differences exist on important dimensions. Yet with virtually no exception they either argue or assert or assume or pretend that those differences are, in fact, of no real consequence in scale. That belief may be convenient and agreeable. Yet there is no earthly reason to believe that evolution, infamous in its disregard of the desires of man or beast, has here chosen to prostrate itself to the heartfelt yearnings, and refined if fragile sensibilities, of our reigning liberal establishment.

I believe that it is a perilous thing indeed to cede control and ownership of basic truths to the side one opposes. When the day arrives — as finally it must — that those truths simply can no longer be credibly disputed, it will wreak great damage on the ideology that refused adamantly to accept even their plausibility, consigning that ideology to an indefinite wandering in the intellectual and political wilderness, while their enemies assume the seat of power.

I do think also that the facts of human biology will prove revolutionary for liberal philosophy in a way that it is not for the right wing ideologies which have already begun to embrace them. Those ideologies, again, find these facts agreeable to their pre-existing biases. I regard those areas of apparent agreement as being based on a rather simple-minded interpretation of, and extrapolation from, those facts. What will be revolutionary for liberalism is the elaboration of a scheme whereby basic liberal values are preserved while being mapped onto the complex, and sometimes discouraging, truths of human biology.

I will not pretend myself to have a clear picture at this time as to what that new scheme might be. I see this blog as in large part an effort to settle on some such outline as I (and any others who might contribute via comments or other blogs) attempt to work through the many issues.

I expect over the first number of posts mainly to spell out some of the reasons I have come to accept, as likely true, a number of genetic differences between certain groups of human beings, as well as why I think it’s damaging and ultimately impossible for liberals to sweep those likely differences under the rug.


11 responses to “First things first: Why even exist?

  1. It’s good to see a site like this get started. As another liberal HBDer it is frustrating to see the far right dominate this truth, and distressing to see our own creationists run from it.

  2. I second Mr. Anon’s comment. I am very happy to see this blog started. I have been chased off liberal forums for just mentioning HBD.

  3. LB,

    I applaud your daring in this matter!

    Perhaps a fun way to start off explaining why you are a liberal biorealist, rather than a racist fascist Nazi Rethuglican like the rest of us poor fsckers out there in the Steveosphere, would be a review of the Death of Johannesburg site – including the many comments from former residents. I feel it would be very informative if you could phrase a liberal biorealist argument to meet their complaints. N’est ce pas?

    Alternatively but in the same line, you could do a movie review of that great classic of ’60s Italian documentary – Africa Addio. Available on Netflix. I would find it very interesting to see Africa Addio reviewed from a liberal biorealist position.

  4. I must agree with Mr. Anon – there are very few of us on the liberal side of things recognizing the role of genetics – not just in IQ differences, but in things like sexual behavior and violence.

  5. Yeah. The problem is that HBD poses some pretty big challenges to conventional liberalism, and it’s going to be hard to deal with them.

    I’m not sure they can be solved without eugenics, which got an awful bad name after WWII…frankly, my objection to the Nazis was not their practice of eugenics but their practice of mass murder, which isn’t too difficult to condemn ethically. But the stain still remains…

    • SFG, personally I can’t see myself ever favouring eugenics unless it was strictly voluntary, if by eugenics you mean discouraging some people from reproducing. I think HDB is going to have to steer well clear of any talk of eugenics in order to gain a foot hold in the mainstream.

      However, I still think the study of HBD could be very beneficial even without eugenics. For one thing it might lead to clues about the cause of diseases and thence to cures. Some diseases are much more prevalent in certain races but people have been too squeamish to study this much for fear of being called a Nazi and having their funding cut, etc. For example many aboriginal populations have a very high prevalence of alcoholism and diabetes (type 2). It seems to be acceptable (only just) to study the high prevalence of diabetes, but it is taboo (in Canada) to suggest that the alcoholism from which so many aboriginals suffer is related to genetics, or to even talk about it at all.

  6. i have been doing surveys of *gene expression* readers since 2004. 20-30% are consistently left of center in their politics. many of the rest are libertarian, some of them explicitly left-libertarian (comments). e.g.,

    liberal readers of GNXP are always surprised by the fact that they’re not that outnumbered. heh.

  7. “SFG, personally I can’t see myself ever favouring eugenics unless it was strictly voluntary, if by eugenics you mean discouraging some people from reproducing. I think HDB is going to have to steer well clear of any talk of eugenics in order to gain a foot hold in the mainstream.”

    Why does it have to be this line of reasoning.

    I am somewhat of a libertarian. At one time, I thought that with real freedom for all, we would all be able to rise together. HBD (which is powerful, but maybe 20 years from now we will have another theory) destroys my rosy outlook.

    I still believe that everyone has a right to “ownlife” (see 1984). I understand your side is looking for a way to humanely look at the problem. I view it like the drug war. The two sides are a. crucify ’em b. legalize it all. Though I tend to b. there might be a c. That c. would be develop drugs that can be legal, but satisfy the desire. Granted, the theory is not quite worked out, but I look at it as lighting the candle and not cursing the darkness.

    As to HBD, science advances apace and the genetics that says what is, also might say what can be. I don’t think it is necessary to call for a genetic Manhattan Project. Just a mind set of lighting the candle.

  8. “What will be revolutionary for liberalism is the elaboration of a scheme whereby basic liberal values are preserved while being mapped onto the complex, and sometimes discouraging, truths of human biology.”

    For the most part I agree with you, but this quote is problematic. Specifically: “whereby basic liberal values are preserved.” If you allow any changes in the science to preserve liberal values, than you’re doing the same thing as the mainstream liberals who you condemn. And if you take the science as it is, not allowing anything to change it, you cannot safely assume that liberal values will always be preserved.

  9. Pingback: New Liberal Race Realist Blog « Robert Lindsay

  10. Liberalism has had at least 30 years to come to terms with facts. Instead of doing this, they have lied and become hysterical if anyone so much as hints at the truth. People’s careers have been ruined for speaking “thoughtcrime” about these subjects. Would it be any wonder if, when the big bad news is made public, that people do some stupid things in consequence?

    Although I find this blog interesting, I don’t have much sympathy for leftists, even realistic ones. If anything, their influence has been more malign than the far-right’s, since they have kept these subjects out of public debate, thus ensuring a larger backlash when said facts become public knowledge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s