Most likely, he's not that afraid of it, but is rather using it as a way to persuade people to accept his ideas. "It's either my ideas or your white nationalist boogeyman".
He's likely using it because it is such a boogeyman. I know it is, you know it is, but the people who are afraid of it (and not cynically) might think twice if they think their actions contribute to something they are afraid of.
Murrray is a CivNat cuck if there ever was one, but he's a really smart guy that analyzes things from angles that other academics are afraid to or will refuse to.
If Dr. Murray thinks that is going to happen, or that non-whites are suddenly going to become happy, raceless Americans
The reason non-whites in America are not 'raceless' is because racial thinking is rewarded in 'Murrica. Go anywhere else in the world, and people do not regard themselves as distinct because of their color. They regard themselves as Chinese, Ibo, Egyptian, but not yellow (or Asian-American Pacific Bluh), black or brown. That is a uniquely American pathology, and the reason for that is to unite disparate groups as an army in order to seize the state.
Push whites too far, and they might get their backs up.” The lefty reply will be, “What? We’re supposed to stop white supremacy by saying that blacks are stupid?”
There is a reason they are so afraid of any talk about race and IQ, and that is because it is lethal for their nonsense. Either they will have to come to terms with it, and recognize that it does not mean that blacks are "stupid", or they will be the ones advocating for racism.
Just like people can recognize that Chinese people are on average shorter than Norwegians, even though height is considered a desirable quality, without regarding them as inferior, they should be able to see the same for other qualities.
No, the worst thing that could happen is that whites might realize they are a race with legitimate group interests.
Yes, because then you have a civil war.
Group interests based on color are retarded no matter whose that they are. You don't have anything in common with people who are of your color.
You don't have anything in common with people who are of your color.
This is blatantly incorrect. Skin color is a proxy for genetics, and genetics are a proxy for culture. You may have nothing in common with someone who shares your skin color, but you are absolutely more likely to share values, standards, and practices with someone who looks like you. And in case you haven't noticed, we make a lot of policy decisions based on shakier correlations than this one.
Whites have been led to believe the opposite by a century of intense and focused propaganda. Every other race has been encouraged to pursue solidarity. Ideally, we would recognize the truth of it while not allowing it to dominate our societal or individual interactions.
This is blatantly incorrect. Skin color is a proxy for genetics, and genetics are a proxy for culture.
Now that is blatantly incorrect. If you are a remotely sane individual, you will have more in common with a black Nigerian Christian than with a white Bosnian Muslim. I meant to say that you don't have anything in common necessarily, and that it is quite a bad measuring stick.
but you are absolutely more likely to share values, standards, and practices with someone who looks like you.
I disagree that someone who is your color 'looks like you'.
Every other race has been encouraged to pursue solidarity.
Only in your country. Not anywhere else. You don't see Muslims pursuing solidarity with people of their color who do not share their religion.
The only possible solution is the one we'd been trying for the past 50 years and apparently both left and right have concluded is a failure: the "color-blind society". Which failed because everyone wants to believe that there are "secret racists" everywhere, and any disparity must be due to them.
The "color-blind society" was born after my parents and will likely die before them. If so then both the USSR and North Korea will have had longer lifespans. A ringing endorsement of an idea if I've ever seen one. Honest empiricists should take note.
He lists China as an example of a nation that is not split along racial lines, but even that is wrong. Ask any Han if a black or Uguyhr are Chinese and he will laugh in your face. Most nations are ethnostates and thus have a homogeneous population leading to less conflict in the first place. As soon as a nation is no longer ethnically homogeneous, conflict along racial lines occurs.
Nah, blacks in Brazil aren't nearly as entitled as the average black in America. Many supported Bolsonaro. Of course, the elites bemoan this in the news outlets they control, so they definitely do want to spread the poison.
Blacks in Europe have done US-style BLM things.
Mostly England. Outside of that, basically nothing. Our blacks are so much better than your blacks.
You're just plain wrong that nowhere but the US has these problems. Dirt isn't magic. If you had our demographics, you would have our problems.
It's got nothing to do with dirt, and everything with what you teach people. Blacks and whites may differ in a lot of areas, but these are not the cause of your problems. In earlier times, you also did not have these same problems, as we don't have as many problems with our blacks.
Watch out! White people might defend ourselves too hard! Much better to let us to get discriminated against or even wiped out!
No one's wiping you out, but obviously, if people tried, then you could defend yourself, same as anyone. This is hysterical hyperbole same as the claim that blacks are like being genocided and such as by the PO-lees.
So what should we do then? As usual you offer no alternative ideas or solutions. I like how you just do the same thing that Murray is being criticized for.
I have a solution for what I consider the problem but I am not sure for what you consider the problem. If you want advantages for being white, and to get rid of anyone who isn't, then my solutions are not going to get that for you.
"Must be as entitled as American blacks before we're allowed to say it's a problem" is an arbitrary standard you made up for this conversation. Check the murder rate in this country you insist isn't a shitshow.
You keep shifting the goalposts. Brazil may be a 'shitshow', but blacks are not as enthralled to identitarianism as yours are. That was what this was about, your claim that non-whites everywhere are identitarians, when only you and American non-whites are.
You barely have them, and they are skewed toward immigration which meant a selection process. In other words, you don't have the US's demographics.
Our immigrants, and selection? Come on man. They just open the borders and let any absolute cretin in. Bonus points if you are a member of ISIS.
When were these earlier times?
1950s for example.
You dropped this: "let us to get discriminated against."
As I don't think it's a justification for you starting a civil war, yes. But you don't oppose discrimination. You just oppose the allocation of roles. You'd like for blacks to be discriminated against and for whites to be benefited, the opposite of the current situation. And I find it as bad as the current situation.
I mentioned Brazil to show that your example of a "working" diverse country wasn't working at all.
I don't believe diverse countries can work, nor did I claim that. I only pointed out that racial identitarianism is mostly an American thing, and your comeback to that was Brazil, as well as the rare BLM moron in Europe (which are an export from America).
Europe selected its shitty immigrants primarily from MENA, not African blacks.
Loads of African blacks posing as refugees arrive from boats every day. And they are welcomed by the corrupt, criminal political elites. They are not exactly the cream of the crop.
If they had made their way to Europe in large numbers, you wouldn't even have this absurd talking point.
A lot of colonial powers, like French and England, have blacks who are generally fine. Certainly no comparison to yours. Why? Because we have not taught them that they deserve the world on account of being black.
When whites had a strong in group bias and enforced segregation, LMAO.
How exactly does this refute the counterpoint to your claim that it is impossible for blacks to behave, when clearly it is possible?
Why the fuck are you citing the 1950s as a period of good race relations then?
I did not mention race relations at all. I only pointed out that blacks back then behaved.Too bad you couldn't dismantle discrimination against blacks without going overboard into another extreme. America can't get anything right.
Oh wait, people have been quoting MLK at the POCs for the last half century. They don't give a fuck
Except that your pure whites who are liberals are far more likely to believe in 'racial liberalism' than even blacks. Every ethnic group voted against Proposition 16, except for blacks, and even among blacks a significant minority voted against it. And that was in California. If they cannot get support in California, from ethnic minorities, where can they get support?
You don't even care about what you purport to claim about. What you seem to want is to receive unfair advantages the way blacks receive now. And that is quite contemptible.
Yes, because whites are second class citizens who are not allowed to think in racial terms. If we did, those in control of the west would eliminate us. It is a bullying tactic. Either you accept white genocide slowly or we do it now.
Rather, I think "you" would eliminate others. It's stupid people who think in racial terms. If you don't want to be a second class citizen, as I agree that you are, then you should oppose thinking in racial terms - not join in on it.
Every nonwhite race thinks in racial terms.
Every nonwhite race promote politics that benefit their own race.
Politics that benefit nonwhite races are implemented because of that pressure.
Whites do not think in terms of race.
Whites do not push for politics that benefit their own race.
White push AGAINST any politics that benefit their own race.
Politics that benefit the white race are NOT implemented because of that pressure.
Whites end up as second class citizens as a result. In their own white countries, non the less.
Not only are whites second class citizens, we have given up our own control and power in our own white nations, which is resulting in the ongoing decade long genocide of whites across the west.
I don't know if it is "stupid" people who think in racial terms.
Whites are still the majority in the west and we can still rather easily take back power through legal means within a few years if we start thinking in racial terms.
Now of course, whites wont be allowed to take back power through legal means, precisely because nonwhites think in racial terms and only play by the rules to keep whites asleep. The moment whites fight back legally, we will experience the full power of the nonwhite races illegally, and within our own borders and with our own technology and with our own weapons and with our own institutions.
However while it is not a bright future for whites to fight against the other races, it is our only option.
The longer we wait, the longer we are color blind, the longer we give those who see us as enemies to take power. It is quite tragic that the other races are so racist, but they leave us with no choice.
We welcomed them with open arms and we were stabbed in the back and exploited.
Go to chicago, paris, london and so on and tell me how vibrant the White culture is in those places.
This is happening everywhere in the west: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGd5peYeebc
And that's Copenhagen which is not like those other places that I mentioned. I don't even hate those muslims in that video, I might even know a few of them or one of my friends could be in family with someone attending there.
But as much as I might like them, I could even love them, I don't want my people to go extinct. I don't want to see my culture gone.
This is false. Almost no one outside of your country thinks in racial terms.
Ethnic terms, religious terms, call it what you want. In Denmark we are socially forced to call nondanes "danes". A far right blogger proved that Danes will be a minority within the next 100 years due to mass immigration. How was this debunked by the media? By using the definition of Danes noted above; basically their argument was - without saying it explicitedly that Danes wont become a minority, because the immigrants that are replacing the Danes will be called Danes. This logic can only be due to malice and support of the genocide of Danes. No one is that stupid, especially because they knew what they were doing in their analysis and they deliberatedly hid this logic from the public.
Go to chicago, paris, london and so on and tell me how vibrant the White culture is in those places
You have never been to Paris, clearly. I have been. Paris is fine, save for the banlieux which are not even part of the city-proper.
This is happening everywhere in the west:
Islamic savages, yes. But that is not the same as you are arguing. You are claiming that non-whites are identitarian. These Islamic savages are not.
I don't want my people to go extinct. I don't want to see my culture gone.
Which is it, though? Western culture is worth preserving. But without Western culture, traditional Western culture that made the West great, there is not much point to 'whites' surviving if say they convert to Islam.
In Denmark we are socially forced to call nondanes "danes".
Oh please, people don't do that, and the non-Danes least of all.
This logic can only be due to malice and support of the genocide of Danes.
Population replacement through immigration is a very bad thing, but it is not 'genocide'. By using that word, you discredit your own case, even though your opposition to immigration is very proper, and shared by me.
That said, none of this has anything to do with race. Islamic savages are bad not because they are not white, for anyone sane will have just as much of a problem with Islamic savages who are white, but because of their religion.
I've been to Paris, but I haven't been to London or Chicago and it is the same thing. You can see it on videos, statistics, demographics and so on. You don't have to actually go to Paris or London to see the replacement migration happening.
You are claiming that non-whites are identitarian
Because they are. Islam is just another way of being identitarian.
there is not much point to 'whites' surviving if say they convert to Islam
Antiwhite
Oh please, people don't do that, and the non-Danes least of all.
Antidanish
Population replacement through immigration is a very bad thing, but it is not 'genocide'.
Yes it is.
By using that word, you discredit your own case, even though your opposition to immigration is very proper, and shared by me.
Let's call things what they are. The intended consequence of mass immigration is to replace the white population with nonwhites, ie white genocide.
That said, none of this has anything to do with race. Islamic savages are bad not because they are not white, for anyone sane will have just as much of a problem with Islamic savages who are white, but because of their religion.
You can call it culture, religion or other words if you want. The reason they want africans into Europe, muslims into Europe, mexicans into the US, blacks into the US, asians into the US, is because they are ways to replace whites in those countries, ie genocide whites in white countries through mass immigration.
You can call it whatever names, the methods are many, the goal but the same.
If you like western civilisation, then you should be in favor of whites getting identitarian, because culture stems from genetics, not ideas.
Western culture will be gone once whites are gone.
You don't see western culture in London, you don't see it in Chicago, you don't see it in Luton, you don't see it in Paris and so on.
Also I take offence with your choice of words "islamic savages". They are human beings, many lovely and kind with the best of intentions. It is not the fault of Islam that they have 85 IQ or commit a lot of crime. They are born that way and they don't deserve to be ridiculed because of that.
We are all put on this earth to live the best lives that we possibly can and hopefully to spread happiness to others around us.
you should oppose thinking in racial terms - not join in on it.
In general it sounds like a good philosophy for life - something you might even hear a based Black grandfather telling his grandchildren.
But on the overall societal level, it has not worked for the last 50 years. Me not thinking in racial terms and teaching my kids to do the same doesn't fix culture or bad policy. It isolates us while the groups that express racial solidarity and are rewarded for using race as a weapon become politically dominant.
At the individual level it's the losers who tell their kids to blame whitey for life's problems, but as a group they're winning.
But on the overall societal level, it has not worked for the last 50 years.
Has it been tried? Racial preferences were the order of the day from the word go.
It isolates us while the groups that express racial solidarity and are rewarded for using race as a weapon become politically dominant.
Being advantaged on the basis of your race is no advantage at all. I am rather glad that there is no such nonsense where I live, or all my accomplishments could be called into question by anyone who wanted to do it.
At the individual level it's the losers who tell their kids to blame whitey for life's problems, but as a group they're winning.
And your solution is to emulate them? What's that good for?
And your solution is to emulate them? What's that good for?
No, unfortunately I don't have any solutions. We all need to do what is best for our own personal dignity and happiness. Maybe solidarity can help build a new political constituency and economy, maybe not. Ideally people would remove themselves from broken societies that value artificial race divisions.
Just like people can recognize that Chinese people are on average shorter than Norwegians, even though height is considered a desirable quality, without regarding them as inferior, they should be able to see the same for other qualities.
Amusingly the type of people you're talking about that are offended by IQ discussions also tend to be the people who claim that IQ is a meaningless measure. If that's true then they shouldn't care one way or the other.
Most likely, he's not that afraid of it, but is rather using it as a way to persuade people to accept his ideas. "It's either my ideas or your white nationalist boogeyman".
He's likely using it because it is such a boogeyman. I know it is, you know it is, but the people who are afraid of it (and not cynically) might think twice if they think their actions contribute to something they are afraid of.
Murrray is a CivNat cuck if there ever was one, but he's a really smart guy that analyzes things from angles that other academics are afraid to or will refuse to.
The reason non-whites in America are not 'raceless' is because racial thinking is rewarded in 'Murrica. Go anywhere else in the world, and people do not regard themselves as distinct because of their color. They regard themselves as Chinese, Ibo, Egyptian, but not yellow (or Asian-American Pacific Bluh), black or brown. That is a uniquely American pathology, and the reason for that is to unite disparate groups as an army in order to seize the state.
There is a reason they are so afraid of any talk about race and IQ, and that is because it is lethal for their nonsense. Either they will have to come to terms with it, and recognize that it does not mean that blacks are "stupid", or they will be the ones advocating for racism.
Just like people can recognize that Chinese people are on average shorter than Norwegians, even though height is considered a desirable quality, without regarding them as inferior, they should be able to see the same for other qualities.
Yes, because then you have a civil war.
Group interests based on color are retarded no matter whose that they are. You don't have anything in common with people who are of your color.
This is blatantly incorrect. Skin color is a proxy for genetics, and genetics are a proxy for culture. You may have nothing in common with someone who shares your skin color, but you are absolutely more likely to share values, standards, and practices with someone who looks like you. And in case you haven't noticed, we make a lot of policy decisions based on shakier correlations than this one.
Whites have been led to believe the opposite by a century of intense and focused propaganda. Every other race has been encouraged to pursue solidarity. Ideally, we would recognize the truth of it while not allowing it to dominate our societal or individual interactions.
Now that is blatantly incorrect. If you are a remotely sane individual, you will have more in common with a black Nigerian Christian than with a white Bosnian Muslim. I meant to say that you don't have anything in common necessarily, and that it is quite a bad measuring stick.
I disagree that someone who is your color 'looks like you'.
Only in your country. Not anywhere else. You don't see Muslims pursuing solidarity with people of their color who do not share their religion.
The only possible solution is the one we'd been trying for the past 50 years and apparently both left and right have concluded is a failure: the "color-blind society". Which failed because everyone wants to believe that there are "secret racists" everywhere, and any disparity must be due to them.
The "color-blind society" was born after my parents and will likely die before them. If so then both the USSR and North Korea will have had longer lifespans. A ringing endorsement of an idea if I've ever seen one. Honest empiricists should take note.
He lists China as an example of a nation that is not split along racial lines, but even that is wrong. Ask any Han if a black or Uguyhr are Chinese and he will laugh in your face. Most nations are ethnostates and thus have a homogeneous population leading to less conflict in the first place. As soon as a nation is no longer ethnically homogeneous, conflict along racial lines occurs.
Nah, blacks in Brazil aren't nearly as entitled as the average black in America. Many supported Bolsonaro. Of course, the elites bemoan this in the news outlets they control, so they definitely do want to spread the poison.
Mostly England. Outside of that, basically nothing. Our blacks are so much better than your blacks.
It's got nothing to do with dirt, and everything with what you teach people. Blacks and whites may differ in a lot of areas, but these are not the cause of your problems. In earlier times, you also did not have these same problems, as we don't have as many problems with our blacks.
No one's wiping you out, but obviously, if people tried, then you could defend yourself, same as anyone. This is hysterical hyperbole same as the claim that blacks are like being genocided and such as by the PO-lees.
I have a solution for what I consider the problem but I am not sure for what you consider the problem. If you want advantages for being white, and to get rid of anyone who isn't, then my solutions are not going to get that for you.
You keep shifting the goalposts. Brazil may be a 'shitshow', but blacks are not as enthralled to identitarianism as yours are. That was what this was about, your claim that non-whites everywhere are identitarians, when only you and American non-whites are.
Our immigrants, and selection? Come on man. They just open the borders and let any absolute cretin in. Bonus points if you are a member of ISIS.
1950s for example.
As I don't think it's a justification for you starting a civil war, yes. But you don't oppose discrimination. You just oppose the allocation of roles. You'd like for blacks to be discriminated against and for whites to be benefited, the opposite of the current situation. And I find it as bad as the current situation.
Stop identitarianism.
I don't believe diverse countries can work, nor did I claim that. I only pointed out that racial identitarianism is mostly an American thing, and your comeback to that was Brazil, as well as the rare BLM moron in Europe (which are an export from America).
Loads of African blacks posing as refugees arrive from boats every day. And they are welcomed by the corrupt, criminal political elites. They are not exactly the cream of the crop.
A lot of colonial powers, like French and England, have blacks who are generally fine. Certainly no comparison to yours. Why? Because we have not taught them that they deserve the world on account of being black.
How exactly does this refute the counterpoint to your claim that it is impossible for blacks to behave, when clearly it is possible?
I did not mention race relations at all. I only pointed out that blacks back then behaved.Too bad you couldn't dismantle discrimination against blacks without going overboard into another extreme. America can't get anything right.
Except that your pure whites who are liberals are far more likely to believe in 'racial liberalism' than even blacks. Every ethnic group voted against Proposition 16, except for blacks, and even among blacks a significant minority voted against it. And that was in California. If they cannot get support in California, from ethnic minorities, where can they get support?
You don't even care about what you purport to claim about. What you seem to want is to receive unfair advantages the way blacks receive now. And that is quite contemptible.
"Yes, because then you have a civil war."
Yes, because whites are second class citizens who are not allowed to think in racial terms. If we did, those in control of the west would eliminate us. It is a bullying tactic. Either you accept white genocide slowly or we do it now.
Rather, I think "you" would eliminate others. It's stupid people who think in racial terms. If you don't want to be a second class citizen, as I agree that you are, then you should oppose thinking in racial terms - not join in on it.
Every nonwhite race thinks in racial terms.
Every nonwhite race promote politics that benefit their own race.
Politics that benefit nonwhite races are implemented because of that pressure.
Whites do not think in terms of race.
Whites do not push for politics that benefit their own race.
White push AGAINST any politics that benefit their own race.
Politics that benefit the white race are NOT implemented because of that pressure.
Whites end up as second class citizens as a result. In their own white countries, non the less.
Not only are whites second class citizens, we have given up our own control and power in our own white nations, which is resulting in the ongoing decade long genocide of whites across the west.
I don't know if it is "stupid" people who think in racial terms.
Whites are still the majority in the west and we can still rather easily take back power through legal means within a few years if we start thinking in racial terms.
Now of course, whites wont be allowed to take back power through legal means, precisely because nonwhites think in racial terms and only play by the rules to keep whites asleep. The moment whites fight back legally, we will experience the full power of the nonwhite races illegally, and within our own borders and with our own technology and with our own weapons and with our own institutions.
However while it is not a bright future for whites to fight against the other races, it is our only option.
The longer we wait, the longer we are color blind, the longer we give those who see us as enemies to take power. It is quite tragic that the other races are so racist, but they leave us with no choice.
We welcomed them with open arms and we were stabbed in the back and exploited.
Tell me about it. Where is this 'genocide'?
This is false. Almost no one outside of your country thinks in racial terms.
This I agree with.
Go to chicago, paris, london and so on and tell me how vibrant the White culture is in those places.
This is happening everywhere in the west:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGd5peYeebc
And that's Copenhagen which is not like those other places that I mentioned. I don't even hate those muslims in that video, I might even know a few of them or one of my friends could be in family with someone attending there.
But as much as I might like them, I could even love them, I don't want my people to go extinct. I don't want to see my culture gone.
Ethnic terms, religious terms, call it what you want. In Denmark we are socially forced to call nondanes "danes". A far right blogger proved that Danes will be a minority within the next 100 years due to mass immigration. How was this debunked by the media? By using the definition of Danes noted above; basically their argument was - without saying it explicitedly that Danes wont become a minority, because the immigrants that are replacing the Danes will be called Danes. This logic can only be due to malice and support of the genocide of Danes. No one is that stupid, especially because they knew what they were doing in their analysis and they deliberatedly hid this logic from the public.
You have never been to Paris, clearly. I have been. Paris is fine, save for the banlieux which are not even part of the city-proper.
Islamic savages, yes. But that is not the same as you are arguing. You are claiming that non-whites are identitarian. These Islamic savages are not.
Which is it, though? Western culture is worth preserving. But without Western culture, traditional Western culture that made the West great, there is not much point to 'whites' surviving if say they convert to Islam.
Oh please, people don't do that, and the non-Danes least of all.
Population replacement through immigration is a very bad thing, but it is not 'genocide'. By using that word, you discredit your own case, even though your opposition to immigration is very proper, and shared by me.
That said, none of this has anything to do with race. Islamic savages are bad not because they are not white, for anyone sane will have just as much of a problem with Islamic savages who are white, but because of their religion.
I've been to Paris, but I haven't been to London or Chicago and it is the same thing. You can see it on videos, statistics, demographics and so on. You don't have to actually go to Paris or London to see the replacement migration happening.
Because they are. Islam is just another way of being identitarian.
Antiwhite
Antidanish
Yes it is.
Let's call things what they are. The intended consequence of mass immigration is to replace the white population with nonwhites, ie white genocide.
You can call it culture, religion or other words if you want. The reason they want africans into Europe, muslims into Europe, mexicans into the US, blacks into the US, asians into the US, is because they are ways to replace whites in those countries, ie genocide whites in white countries through mass immigration.
You can call it whatever names, the methods are many, the goal but the same.
If you like western civilisation, then you should be in favor of whites getting identitarian, because culture stems from genetics, not ideas.
Western culture will be gone once whites are gone.
You don't see western culture in London, you don't see it in Chicago, you don't see it in Luton, you don't see it in Paris and so on.
Also I take offence with your choice of words "islamic savages". They are human beings, many lovely and kind with the best of intentions. It is not the fault of Islam that they have 85 IQ or commit a lot of crime. They are born that way and they don't deserve to be ridiculed because of that.
We are all put on this earth to live the best lives that we possibly can and hopefully to spread happiness to others around us.
In general it sounds like a good philosophy for life - something you might even hear a based Black grandfather telling his grandchildren.
But on the overall societal level, it has not worked for the last 50 years. Me not thinking in racial terms and teaching my kids to do the same doesn't fix culture or bad policy. It isolates us while the groups that express racial solidarity and are rewarded for using race as a weapon become politically dominant.
At the individual level it's the losers who tell their kids to blame whitey for life's problems, but as a group they're winning.
Has it been tried? Racial preferences were the order of the day from the word go.
Being advantaged on the basis of your race is no advantage at all. I am rather glad that there is no such nonsense where I live, or all my accomplishments could be called into question by anyone who wanted to do it.
And your solution is to emulate them? What's that good for?
No, unfortunately I don't have any solutions. We all need to do what is best for our own personal dignity and happiness. Maybe solidarity can help build a new political constituency and economy, maybe not. Ideally people would remove themselves from broken societies that value artificial race divisions.
Amusingly the type of people you're talking about that are offended by IQ discussions also tend to be the people who claim that IQ is a meaningless measure. If that's true then they shouldn't care one way or the other.
I liked his last book. I will probably read this. I didn't know about it though. Thx