I hope and believe that I am not a racist in the usual sense of that over-used term. However, I am certainly what I call a 'race realist', and thus what 'anti-racists' and the 'liberal'-left and the media have in recent years called a 'scientific racist.'
Like any other attitude, true 'racism' involves affective, cognitive and conative components. -- To have an attitude is to feel a certain way, to have particular beliefs, and to intend to act on those feelings and beliefs. But the three components are distinguishable and can exist independently, as follows.
'Race prejudice' is the usual term for the 'affective' component of racism. A person may have a mild or strong aversion to people of another race for no very obvious good reason. For example, Japanese people do not like the way Caucasians smell. (For most Japanese, the aversion is quite specific to the smell: they do not like to be with the small minority of Japanese people who also have Caucasian body odours.) Prejudice is not necessarily bad; and it may always have some evolutionary survival value in conjunction with other features. But it will tend to lead to selective exposure to people of other races and even to 'pre-judging' information about them.
'Race realism' is the most obvious term for the 'cognitive' component of racism. Here the person entertains sincere beliefs about race differences which are taken to be reasonably important and quite deep-seated. Scientists who are race realists believe that good evidence and cogent arguments can be found to support race realism. Supporters of the London School of differential psychology are the best recognized group of experts to have held such beliefs in the West since 1945; but a wider range of 'race realists' (most from outside psychology) write for the journal Mankind Quarterly. Since 'the Jensen heresy' of 1969, it has been standard practice of 'anti-racists' to try to pretend that all such scientific thinking is essentially 'Nazi' in tendency or inspiration--despite the fact that Hitler banned IQ testing and brought about the greatest destruction of intellectual talent in his country since the French had driven their Protestand middle class to Berlin by the Massacre of St Bartholomew's Day. (Since 1980, London School psychologists have tended to claim it demonstrable that East Asian people have higher IQ than Caucasian--whatever other limitations Asian people may have; and in my banned book 'The 'g' Factor' I claim that IQ tests probably underestimate Asian intelligence.)
'Racial discrimination' is the 'conative' component of racism. The proponent seeks to discriminate according to race as a matter of public policy. Or, according to some critics, the employer who wishes to hire according to 'literacy' or 'IQ' may be a *disguised* practitioner of racial discrimination. Once more, the intention to discriminate can exist on its own, without the 'affective' or 'cognitive' components of true racism. For example, a black politician or a white employer may have no wish to favour blacks, nor any belief that blacks differ so as to need 'positive discrimination', yet both may think it pragmatic and politic to go along with affirmative action programmes rather than risk the bad publicity of doing otherwise. (In recent years the Left in the West has lost the now-'embourgeoisified' working class that once supported it. So it now looks to 'minority groups' [including women!] for support. It has traded off decent people's rejection of populist racism. It shrieks that anything which might address the very real social problems found among black people in the West is 'racist.' In the hysterical climat, many whites now live in fear that their livelihoods may be snatched away if they exhibit the slightes sign of whatever the 'liberal'-left choose to call 'racist.')
Being a 'race realist' may seem rather tame and academic. So let me conclude this piece on 'definitions' by saying, yes, there are *some* full-blooded attitudes that I *do* happily acknowledge. I am what might by called an 'IQ-ist': like St Augustine, Dr Johnson, Charles Spearman, Sir Cyril Burt, Ayn Rand and Bill Shockley, I do believe in the supreme importance of intelligence in human affairs, and in our duty to respect and nurture this most valuable resource. --And, for better or worse, I don't know of any better measure of a person's intelligence than a 45-minute IQ-type test. [No, since people ask, my own IQ is nothing special--though I hope I have a few verbal knacks that come in handy.] I am also a 'truth-ist': I have been paid by the British taxpayer for 26 years to find out the truth in psychology, and I intend to go on giving value for money.
|Cycad Web Works Mon Feb 18 13:26:58 EST 2019
: # 1 : last modified 18/1/119 |
Chris Brand viewed by email@example.com