Almost a year ago, Bill O’Reilly made a compelling case against race hustlers and apologists for black violence and crime. The best of his “Talking Points” begins about 3:05 into the following 8:15 video.
But O’Reilly’s argument, though compelling, was misleading and incomplete.
O’Reilly’s case was based on the notions that blacks aren’t forced to into promiscuity, crime and violence by Whites, but choose to have children out of wedlock; that blacks choose to embrace a culture of violence and crime–all of which is, broadly speaking, true.
But O’Reilly’s focus on black “choice” is misleading in this regard: By focusing on black “choice,” O’Reilly implies that the only thing that’s necessary for blacks to succeed in this society is to make better choices. Resolve the “race problem” is just that simple
But it’s not that simple. In fact, O’Reilly’s recommended solution (better choices) is “racist” insofar as it suggests one solution (better choices) for all blacks. The truth is that some blacks can make better choices, but some cannot.
O’Reilly traces most race problems to the fact that 73% of black babies are born out of wedlock and raised without fathers. If black women would choose to stop bearing illegitimate babies, the race problem would largely disappear. Theoretically, O’Reilly is right. But while some black woman could make that choice, some cannot.
I might similarly pontificate on the relationship of sugar to the tooth decay problem. I could brilliantly observe that if we’d all stop choosing to eat candy and other sweets, the tooth decay problem would virtually disappear. It’s just that simple. Except for one little thing, I doubt that more than 10% of us are inclined or able to absolutely give up sugar. Likewise, I doubt that all Black women will or even can give up on unprotected sex and illegitimate pregnancies. Sex can be just as sweet a sugar, so most Black women are no more likely to give up on illegitimate pregnancies than they are to give up on ice cream and cake.
O’Reilly implies that the foundation for American’s race problem is a poor system of values among blacks. O’Reilly implies that once blacks learn proper values and make choices based on those values, the race problem will diminish or even disappear.
But I don’t think that it’ll be that easy.
Canadian professor of psychology J. Phillipe Rushton wrote a book entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior in the mid-1990s. That book advanced one or more theories and conclusions about race that were at least controversial.
But Rushton’s evidence was scholarly and hard to refute. In part, he offered evidence of numerous IQ studies from around the world that tested and compared the relative intellects of the three fundamental races (White, Negro and Asian). According to this global evidence, the average IQ for African Negroes was 70, the average IQ for American Negroes was 85; the average IQ for Whites was 100; and the average IQ for Asians was 105.
If Asians are often more talented in math than Whites, it’s no accident or simple result of culture. Asian IQs are, on average, 5 points higher than Whites. Asians are innately more intelligent than Whites and therefore better able to comprehend complex disciplines like mathematics. Admitting this inequality is not evidence of racism. It is simply a fact of statistics.
Likewise, when Whites, on average, do better at math or science than American Negroes, it’s not simply a result of a dysfunctional black culture or bad black “choices”. According to Rushton, the average White’s IQ is 15 points higher than the average American black’s. Thus, a significant percentage of American blacks cannot “choose” to become mathematicians, scientists, corporate executives, small business owners or even cops because they don’t have enough intelligence to perform the technical aspects of those jobs. Admitting this disability is not evidence of racism. It’s simply an observation of statistical facts.
These observations of low IQ as a disability don’t apply only to American blacks. Lots of Whites and Asians are also born with low IQs. But on a percentage basis, there are more unintelligent Blacks than there are unintelligent Whites, and there are more unintelligent Whites than there are unintelligent Asians. I’m not arguing that all Blacks are unintelligent. Witness Obama. He’s half-white and more intelligent (but also less ethical) than most Blacks, Whites or Asians. I’m not arguing that all Whites are more intelligent than all Blacks or that all Asian are more intelligent that all Whites or Blacks. To make blanket statements about all members of any race is racists. To make honest statements reflecting the statistical average of a particular race is not racism but a simple statement of truth.
Insofar as these intellectual differences exist, on average, between the races, there are some people who are Blacks, some who are Whites, and some who are Asians who are so unintelligent that they’re incapable of even understanding the choices that O’Reilly advocates, let alone making intelligent choices.
For O’Reillly to imply that all Blacks need to do to succeed is make better choice is equivalent to someone telling me that the reason I never got to play center for the LA Lakers is that I should’ve make a better choice to play guard. The truth is, I never had the opportunity to choose between being guard, forward or center on a high school, college or profession basketball team because I never had the talent to play the game. The choice between playing center and playing guard was not available to mer or anyone else with a similarly low level of talent. Similarly, a disproportionate percentage of American Blacks don’t have sufficient intelligence to understand or make the choices that O’Reilly advocates. As a result, they don’t have the opportunity to make O’Reilly’s choices.
Result? The American “race problem” is going to fester until somebody figures out a way to equalize Black and White IQs.
In the meantime, what can we expect from those Americans (Black, White or Asian) who have enough intelligence to covet what the rich and even middle-class possess and enjoy, but lack sufficient intelligence to earn for themselves?
There are probably several answers to that question, but among them are “criminal behavior” and “violence”–especially so long as most Black folk are encouraged to believe that the reason they don’t prosper is discrimination by Whitey, when the real reason is that a significant percentage of Blacks (30%? 40%? More?) don’t have enough inherent intelligence to successfully participate in a technological society.
And for those you who are White or Asian and inclined to gloat over low Black intellect, just wait–your turn is coming.
We’re living in a world that’s increasingly over-populated by both people and by labor-saving devices. More people means more demands for food, clothing, shelter and rising prices. More labor-saving devices around the home and in industry means less jobs. How are we going to feed, clothe and house increasing populations at the same time we’re having decreasing employment? Welfare for all?
Right now, half of the American Black community has an IQ of 85 or less. That half of Black America may already be too intellectually disabled to realistically hope to ever make their way into the middle class.
Yes, I know that some people with low IQs but high levels of motivation and a solid system of values learned from their parents can prosper. IQ isn’t everything. Not by a long shot.
Nevertheless, how long will it be before our society becomes so technological that anyone with an IQ below 100 will find it virtually impossible to work their way into the middle class? If and when that day comes, half of America’s Whites (and something like 75% of Blacks) will be restricted from entering the middle class by virtue of low intelligence.
It’s even possible to imagine that if technology continues to become more complex and produce more labor-saving devices, that the day is coming when you’ll need an IQ of 120 to get even an entry-level job.
If that day ever comes, what are we going to do with the 85% of Whites and 95% of Blacks who have IQs lower than 120? Feed them? Clothe them? House them? For free? Put them all on welfare? Let ’em screw around and make babies like chickens laying eggs? Or will government sterilize them? Even exterminate them?
C’mon, O’Reilly–what choices do you recommend that’ll be available to virtually all Americans just twenty years from now?
I guarantee that those choices won’t simple, pretty or painless.
We’re coming to a Mathusian moment where, one way or another, by famine, epidemic, pestilence, government decree, WWIII, or even widespread interpersonal violence of the sort already seen among American Blacks–the world’s population will be dramatically reduced. Those with low IQs may be among the first to be culled.