When the truth is taboo, resulting policies have disastrous consequences.
Long debunked, factually false narrative causes unspeakable damage. No matter how good the egalitarian intentions, no matter how much effort to repress racist facts and the “racist”! Truth and human nature will win against wishful thinking. We must allow the truth to be spoken. TruthRevolution totally agrees with Murray’s article we just summarized. But Murray, understandingly, still sugarcoats the full racist truth.
“The inequality taboo” [Charles Murray, 2005] points out the necessity of truth telling.
Gender Sex differences, race differences, inborn individual differences in IQ, talent, work ethics and character do exist. University departments in “Personality and individual differences” were abolished in exchange for antiscientific postmodern African Studies, Gender Studies.
Nature does not change to adapt to wishful thinking, dogma, and taboos. The earth is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun, many diseases are caused by microorganisms, the human mind is largely a result of genetics, individuals and groups are different by nature. Even nurture is often controlled by nature (“The nature of nurture”[Plomin]).
Ignore the laws and facts of nature at your own (and everybody’s peril)
- Gag orders (inequality taboo) must be abolished, truth must be told. Murray and TruthRevolution are in total agreement.
- It seems Murray overlooked that we actually have the officialized PC Gag order, explicitly written regulations for media, police, that demand “racist” facts to be covered up. But that does not diminish the value of Murray’s other observations.
“The inequality taboo” [Charles Murray, 2005]
[…]
We recommend you read the entire essay, we only cite a small excerpt
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
- Racism taboo ⇔ PC gag order [⇔ PresseKodex12.1 ⇔ Stylebook . Our PC Gag order is the same as Murray’s inequality taboo, is the same as the racism taboo.
- Universalist/Egalitarianism dogma is the same as inequality taboo
- Equality dogma: all races are equal.
- Dishonesty as a Method to Fight Racism 1: Universalism or Egalitarianism: Universalism “insists on the universal nature of mankind. This leads to the belief that all racial-ethnic groups and cultures are
The taboo is not perfect—otherwise, I would not have been able to document this essay—but it is powerful. Witness how few of Harvard’s faculty who understood the state of knowledge about sex differences were willing to speak out during the Summers affair. In the public-policy debate, witness the contorted ways in which even the opponents of policies like affirmative action frame their arguments so that no one can accuse them of saying that women are different from men or blacks from whites. Witness the unwillingness of the mainstream media to discuss group differences without assuring readers that the differences will disappear when the world becomes a better place.
Yes, closing un-closable gaps has cost us Trillions. No child left behind, hiring dangerously incompetent fire fighters, weakened by gender quotas, dumbed by racial quota nonsense.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
- Scientific Honesty &
integrity compromised by PC Antiracist dogma - “Diversity is
strength” is UNFALSIFIABLE #2 –due to PC speech ..: The creed of politically
correct egalitarianism is recursively self perpetuating and can never be
falsified. - Honesty: #1 necessity for a modern scientific society
- The Truth is Racist, races are different
- Truth no defense in racism trials
The nature of many of the consequences must be a matter of conjecture because people are so fearful of exploring them. Consider an observation furtively voiced by many who interact with civil servants: that government is riddled with people who have been promoted to their level of incompetence because of pressure to have a staff with the correct sex and ethnicity in the correct proportions and positions. Are these just anecdotes? Or should we be worrying about the effects of affirmative action on the quality of government services? It would be helpful to know the answers, but we will not so long as the taboo against talking about group difference prevails.
How much damage has the taboo done to the education of children? Christina Hoff Sommers has argued that willed blindness to the different developmental patterns of boys and girls has led many educators to see boys as aberrational and girls as the norm, with pervasive damage to the way our elementary and secondary schools are run. Is she right? Few have been willing to pursue the issue lest they be required to talk about innate group differences. Similar questions can be asked about the damage done to medical care, whose practitioners have only recently begun to acknowledge the ways in which ethnic groups respond differently to certain drugs.
How much damage has the taboo done to our understanding of America’s social problems? The part played by sexism in creating the ratio of males to females on mathematics faculties is not the ratio we observe but what remains after adjustment for male-female differences in high-end mathematical ability. The part played by racism in creating different outcomes in black and white poverty, crime, and illegitimacy is not the raw disparity we observe but what remains after controlling for group characteristics. For some outcomes, sex or race differences nearly disappear after a proper analysis is done. For others, a large residual difference remains. In either case, open discussion of group differences would give us a better grasp on where to look for causes and solutions.
_____________
What good can come of raising this divisive topic? The honest answer is that no one knows for sure. What we do know is that the taboo has crippled our ability to explore almost any topic that involves the different ways in which groups of people respond to the world around them—which means almost every political, social, or economic topic of any complexity.
Thus my modest recommendation, requiring no change in laws or regulations, just a little more gumption. Let us start talking about group differences openly—all sorts of group differences, from the visuospatial skills of men and women to the vivaciousness of Italians and Scots. Let us talk about the nature of the manly versus the womanly virtues. About differences between Russians and Chinese that might affect their adoption of capitalism. About differences between Arabs and Europeans that might affect the assimilation of Arab immigrants into European democracies. About differences between the poor and non-poor that could inform policy for reducing poverty.
Murray mentions interesting subtler group differences. They remain unexplored because the inequality taboo denies even huge differences between man and woman and Black and white.
Even to begin listing the topics that could be enriched by an inquiry into the nature of group differences is to reveal how stifled today’s conversation is. Besides liberating that conversation, an open and undefensive discussion would puncture the irrational fear of the male-female and black-white differences I have surveyed here. We would be free to talk about other sexual and racial differences as well, many of which favor women and blacks, and none of which is large enough to frighten anyone who looks at them dispassionately.
Murray has to tread very carefully. If he were more explicit he would become more of a pariah he already is. Better not mention decades of costly white flight, black school Bullying Terror, destruction of Detroit, Baltimore, Malmö, Zimbabwe, Haiti.
Talking about group differences does not require any of us to change our politics. For every implication that the Right might seize upon (affirmative-action quotas are ill-conceived), another gives fodder to the Left (innate group differences help rationalize compensatory redistribution by the state). But if we do not need to change our politics, talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to the ideal of equality that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal in today’s language in The Blank Slate, writing that “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.” [Continue the entire long article “The inequality taboo” Charles Murray, 2005]