This article from Byron Roth appeared about a year ago and while the author is overly pessimistic at the end of the essay based on what we now know, it’s still a great bit of writing that ties together developments in the sciences of genetics and evolutionary biology with the current political movement against the left and the corporate and political establishments. These different areas may seem at first glance to have little to do with each other, but we can follow a direct line of cause and effect from our modern understanding of genetics to how our genetic heritage affects our political systems.
And it should be noted that the arguments made in this essay are not far removed from those that motivated the development of the Manosphere as is related in the podcast posted below. The arguments of leftist feminism are also based on this “blank slate” notion. In the view of the left Man’s nature is malleable and open to change based on the correct social policy. The idea that humans are far less plastic and that most of our behaviors are hard-wired by millions of years of evolution is rejected because that would mean the refutation of the leftist agenda.
The social sciences have long-held the view that there are no inherent differences between ethnic groups and any differences that do exist are the result of environmental influences. But we have a century’s worth of data that indicates otherwise. Temperament, intelligence, artistic and musical ability and a host of other characteristics are heavily influenced by our genetic makeup. And what really undermines the whole of leftist thinking is not just the fact that individuals differ in such characteristics, but the fact that groups do as well. And of course, our whole social policy universe is explicitly based on the assumption that there are no real differences between groups. But the accumulated scientific evidence tells a different story. And that makes this view incompatible with multiculturalism, political correctness, and an open borders policy. It is no surprise then that this scientific understanding has been consistently attacked by academics in the social sciences.
Enormous strides have been made in recent years in unraveling the evolutionary basis of human nature. Among other things, this work totally undermines the Behaviorist view that everything human is environmentally determined. Behaviorism, for decades, hindered serious progress in the social sciences; it is well that it be put to rest.
Unfortunately, the pervasive influence of Cultural Marxism and the tactics of its adherents have prevented evolutionary approaches from spreading widely in the human sciences. This is apparent in the persistent rejection of any discussion of the biological basis of human racial differences, nowhere more so than in issues relating to IQ. This rejection is unfazed by the fact that there are few, if any, constructs in the social sciences more powerful than IQ. It correlates with and predicts an extremely wide range of social phenomena including, but not limited to, school and economic performance, criminal behavior, differences in wealth between nations, and demographic groups within nations. Among research psychologists, this is well known and not particularly controversial. Equally well-known is that, based on decades of research, IQ is, in large measure, genetically determined.
